User talk:Swatjester/archive7

Links

User Page

Main Page

Talk Page

Userboxes

Sandbox

Quotes

Contribs

[edit] Inbox Comments Go Here

hello swatjester. i'm trying to find local wikipedians. i'm a reporter with the PB Post. would you be willing to chat? fred underscore marion at pbpost dot com. Thanks

Post-script, I conducted the interview today, it went pretty well. It should print on the 29th.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching - October 30 - Held requests

As it's been a while since you signed up for admin coaching, I am just checking that you still wish to receive it. Leave a note on my talk page, and I'll assign you some of our free coaches. Let me know (on my talk page) if you have any questions. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement

Hello, from your edits on Law Enforcement articles, I am dropping by to leave a polite invitation to join the Law Enforcement wikiproject. Many thanks --SGGH 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching - November 1 - New recruits

Your coach is Mr. Lefty. Exactly what form the admin coaching takes is up to you and the coach to decide, but a general piece of advice I give is to set up a user subpage (for example User:EXAMPLE/Admin coaching) to keep coaching discussion together. That prevents things getting split up over two talk pages, which can get confusing! Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you in other languages?

So, you have a "Swatjester in other languages site" but when I clicked it, it didn't exist. Create the page or I'll create it. Oh, and sorry about the vandalism on Xizes' homepage. Forgot to log on. Peace out dude. AstroBoy 00:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Oh and totally sweet home page, like, really.

[edit] WARNING! WARNING!

All right, if you don't create yo "swatjester in other languages site the next time I log on (which is in 24h), I'll create, like it or not. Like your homepage though. Totally off the hook man. I used the idea for MY homepage, even though it's like plagarism, but hey? Copying one word off the internet is also plagarism. so remember, CREATE YOUR OTHER LANGUAGES HOMEPAGE! Peace out. AstroBoy 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) NOTICE: THE ABOVE CONTENT IS NOT A THREAT WHATSOEVER.

[edit] Never mind=

Go ahead, leave it the way it is.AstroBoy 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] creation has begun...

Created your archive 6 and changed your number. AstroBoy 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army service

Saw the discussions on the various C3, C4 etc pages. Which units did you serve in in the Army? Buckshot06 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks SwatJester. Hope the morale in the FL ARNG is good now having returned. Are you still in the Guard? Cheers Buckshot06 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Campbell

The only sourced statement in the article to support the assertion is the accusation from the Jerusalem Post, and the claim by Sue Blackwell. She has denied the accusations. You talk about truth, but how are we supposed to judge her? See WP:V. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I see it. Remember the standard in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The fact is there are two sourced claims of anti-semitism. While I personally think the category should be renamed "alleged anti-semites", it's survived something like 4 CFDs.

Furtheremore, while truth is an absolute defense to libel, so is a good faith claim about a public figure the claimant believes to be the truth. The burden of libel in the united states is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. If Wendy Campbell has a problem with it, wikipedia has a libel email hotline she's welcome to mail, however we're not a censored project, and if she wants to claim libel, she must prove the falsehood of that claim. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's on CfD now, which is what inspired me to clean it up. But, yes, there are two sourced claims that she is, and one sourced claim that she isn't. Just because she hasn't complained, don't mean we should ignore her as a reliable source to what she herself believes. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But she's not a reliable source because it's not verifiable. Remember what constitutes a reliable source: Another wikipedia article is not a reliable source. Jerusalem Post is a fact-checked primary source, as is Sue Blackwell. Thats 2 reliable sources to 0. If Wendy Campbell came out in the new york times tomorrow, then you'd have a point, but that hasn't happened. And I shouldn't have to point out that it is a guideline that the subjects of articles should not interfere on the editing of their own articles as they cannot possibly maintain a neutral point of view. I'm going to revert and add the category back in. I'm asking you not to remove it until you can find a RELIABLE source that says she is not: by reliable I mean a fact checked publication that is not a blog, personal web page, or the subject of the article itself. If not, I'll bring the page to WP:AN where they can debate whether claiming libel constitutes a violation of WP:NLT, but I hate to waste their time when the facts clearly support that I'm right. So please, allow the category to stay unless you can find such data, or better yet, create a new category called "alleged anti-semites". ⇒ SWATJester^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems rather absurd. She's not a reliable source as to whether or not she's an anti-Semite? I mean, if the Jerusalem Post claimed she liked potato salad, and she claimed she didn't, we'd still have to put in the Category:People who like potato salad. (Even if we had pictures of her eating potato salad, we couldn't actually prove that she liked it.) I don't see how you can dismiss her claim as to not hate Jews so out of hand; it's the exact same principle. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No no no, I'm not saying that SHE's not a reliable source, I'm saying that she's not a reliable source on wikipedia due to the "anyone can edit, and anyone can claim to be anyone else), and she's not a reliable source on her own personal pages (due to the personal page aspect not being a RS, and due to the guideline on people not editing their own articles). What I'm saying is she's only be a reliable source if she was commenting in a reliable secondary source: a newspaper, magazine, etc. THAT would be acceptable. But there is nothing to that. And I don't follow your analogy: If the NY times claims I like ice cream, and I hate ice cream, it doesn't matter: unless I get the new york times to retract their statement or publish something saying I like ice cream, or unless I come out publically in the washington post saying "Ice cream sucks, popcorn for life", I belong in the "People who like ice cream category". ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But how can the NYT be a reliabe source in the first place as to whether or not you like ice cream? OK, so maybe the article Wendy Campbell is badly sourced for her own claim -- if her claim hadn't been in the article, I wouldn't have removed the category. It is in there, with a footnote, and if it isn't reliable it should be removed. But overall this really just confirms what I wrote hours ago that this whole category is really a judgement call, and this category is simply codifying detraction, since know one can possibly know definitively what a persons's likes and dislikes are. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The NYT is always a reliable source because they're assumed to be fact checked. Therefore, they would not publish it without it being true, (or opinion, which does not conform to the scale of truth). I agree with you that the category sucks, but we have to work within the framework we're given. The proper solution in my belief, is to include a footnote to Wendy's claim within the article, claiming that Wendy disputes that she is an anti-semite. That way, its included in the category, but anyone interested in the topic will clearly see that it is disputed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That solution doesn't seem right either. Look at #8 under WP:CAT#Some general guidelines. The categorization should be self-evident, but it isn't in this case. I'm not entirely sure if that's a fundamental flaw in the category or not; I've now read every article in that category from letters A-M and T-Z and any I left standing seemed pretty darn self evident to me. And there doesn't seem to be any way for Wendy Campbell to unring the bell; Mel Gibson can get an interview with Barbara Walters at a moment's notice, Trent Lott can get an hour on BET -- but who the heck is Wendy Campbell? Some slub, and now she's forever some anti-Semitic slub. It just seems really crummy not to take her claims into account. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It maybe, but wikipedia isn't about fairness or media exposure. She's notable enough to have produced a documentary and received newspaper commentary and academia commentary, she's notable enough for inclusion. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warrior on Warriorism

I didn't know "personal attacks" against the banned sockpuppets of the already banned users are not allowed. It's interesting :) --HanzoHattori 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed against anyone. Doesn't matter who they are. Two wrongs do not make a right.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

Hello,

A link found on your main User page, "Swatjester in other languages" is broken (or will be soon when the article linked to gets speedily deleted since you didn't write it and that it seems close enough to nonsense.) You might want to update this link, and also make sure that it remains in your user namespace (i.e. User:Swatjester/other.) --Sigma 7 12:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hanzohattori

I know of no mediation and I'm not mentoring the guy in any serious way, but I have made a couple suggestions to him to help him get his generally useful edits retained. He clearly gets overheated and someone should give him a strong message that it's not okay to make personal attacks the next time he makes one. But at the same time, while I don't in any way feel his comments are justified, he's been pushed in several instances by a user who just won't listen to reason and doesn't get WP:OWN. So, while I'm not mentoring him per se, if you have dealings with him in the future, do keep me posted. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling in the Calvary

Just holler next time you need backup. Oh, and the Deletionist Cabal is drooling over the chance to take Grendel 6.5 to AfD. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. I'd probably vote delete on it if it were taken, though I'm sure it's a huge conflict of interest for me to nominate it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to talk at Reginhild

Quote "You mentioned on Talk:6.5 Grendel that you consider all your wikipedia posts public domain. Unfortunately there is a disclaimer everytime you post that says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." That is definitely not the same thing as public domain. You might want to be aware of that. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)"

Yes, I felt I had to post a licence agreement in order for my contribution to not be deleted here at Wikipedia. I consider my "forum postings" public domain (not Wikipedia page posts) as I stated in the 6.5 Grendel talk.

Thanks for your clarification Reginhild 00:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Again?

What are you talking about?

[edit] Firearms 2 (computer game) deletion question

I responded. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my RFC

Hi, I was struck that you said on my RFC "he doesn't really discuss it". Did I miss a message from you? If so, I apologize. —Chowbok ☠ 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Duhhh... sorry, I must have looked at that a dozen times without "seeing" it. I am very sorry I didn't reply, although I feel I've done my best to address your concerns on the talk page. And I do appreciate that it's not personal; I'm glad we can disagree about implementation of policy without it turning into a nasty fight, as it does so often. —Chowbok ☠ 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3nd AFD nom for List of Battlefield 1942 mods

You may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. Bfelite 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law school

How is that going? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yeah...=

yeah.....wat r u talking about man.............u left me a message......but i dont get it............ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Thank you for voting

Thanks for your message. I will give Admin Coaching some consideration. Wikiwoohoo 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Assault rifle, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] I hope I'm writing this in the correct space

I was wondering if, when you have some spare time (as if anyone ever does) you could recommend what I should do to resolve the Derek Smart article dispute. Is there a place I should go to, or a form to fill out? As an aside, I think that Kerr Avon is being more earnest in his efforts to discuss before acting, so hopefully there's no need to escalate, but still if you could recommend a proper course of action should it come to that, I would appreciate it. Please feel free to use my talk space (I think I can do less damage that way). And as another aside, I thought I was one of the last five people who knew what a "grognard" was. I'm pleased to meet one of the other four and to learn that they are not extinct! Mael-Num 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's beyond you and Kerr Avon. Hell it didn't start with you guys. It started with WarhawkSP, Supreme Cmdr, the IPs, and a half dozen other accounts. It involves interpretation of policy. RFC is only going to be useful here as a checkbox to move towards Arbitration. I think mediation would work if everyone agreed to it. I've asked for administrator intervention, and I think the page should remain semiprotected for the time being. As is, the only real solution is to have those that actually understand policy enforce it, (those being admins), and enforce it strongly and switfly (with temporary blcoks). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Ruben RfA

Swatjester/archive7, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance (I promise to look over Tramadol more often) :-) David Ruben 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimeetup Miami

Will be at the Las Vegas Cuban Restaurant at about 12:45 with Wikipedia sign in hand. Hope you can make it. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage

I saw the anon editing your user page and checked to ensure it wasn't vandalism. But I did see the links and wondered if you had seen "Consensus on vandalism user subpages". I'm not really bothered but it appears that others are. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Was not aware. Well, I won't complain if someone else changes it, but tbh I really don't pay attention to it, and I think the whole discussion is silly.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your support! MONGO 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		The Law Enforcement Wikiproject wishes all it's members a happy New Year! SGGH 09:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart

Some thoughts about your question. First, a Wikipedia article on someone like this who may be notable but is not a public figure should basically contain facts about their career and achievemnts. This guy is not someone important in the wider world like, say, George W. Bush or even Richard Dawkins, whose actions or beliefs need scrutiny in the public interest - and we should report neutrally on that scrutiny. And then, what if the situation were like this? (Just asking a hypothetical question.) What if 90 per cent of the 80 per cent of unfavourable stuff about Smart consisted of discussion on blogs, in Usenet posts, in posts on message boards, etc., all by fans just sounding off making the same repetitive points about his abrasive personality? I tend to think we should discount that kind of stuff unless it has been mentioned by a reliable source (which is what we should attribute). What if 90 per cent of the favourable stuff actually related to the quality and market impact of his games, and appeared in professional reviews in notable magazines? On this scenario, once the actual facts about him were dealt with in the article (which, again, should take up most of it), it's not at all obvious to me that the rest of the article should be weighted to criticism, even if it were 80:20 in the sense I've described. I can think of other people who, for various reasons, cop incredible flack from fan communities, but it is not the kind of criticism that a casual reader would (should?) expect Wikipedia to report.

I want to be clear that I'm only trying to explore this and have no brief for Smart - God knows, he doesn't sound like someone I'd really want to defend, and I stumbled across the article entirely by accident. But I think someone reasonable should be raising these issues and the pro-Smart editors have maybe not been all that reasonable so far. Anyway, might there not be some element of what I'm describing? Or might it not at least look like that to friends or fans of Smart, or to Smart himself? I'm not sure the arbitrators can settle this, but these points would have to be considered by any neutral people who came in to clean up the article. It's also possible that these questions might mitigate any wrongdoing on both sides, if the answers are currently unclear and both sides acting in good faith on their interpretation of what is supposed to happen. Of course, none of this could excuse incivility, personal attacks, revert warring, etc. Metamagician3000 09:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

SwatJester, I would like to see you post proof of your claim that 99% of the news about Derek Smart is negative. This is yet another blanket statement that you folks make and with no basis in reality nor which pass any form of the WP:RS muster. If what you claim were true, well then, why should a source such as Usenet which fails WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL be the only place where you can find such posts? Where are the WP:RS articles? Surely if 99% news about Derek Smart were negative, you wouldn't need the Usenet to find them would you? Nope, you wouldn't. Further, it is already clear that the Usenet posts were about The Great Flame War. Since when are people at their best in any flame war? So, even if there was negativity toward him and his supporters on Usenet as a result of The Great Flame War, how does that have anything to do with a WP:BLP article about a [supposed] public figure? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You apparently refuse to acknowledge the fact, like the arbitrators said, that policy, including RS, BLP and EL are completely unclear on Usenet, and your claims that it fails such are well proven thus far by those who are familiar with wikipedia's rules, to be incorrect and weak. I'm not going to argue with you over it here. There's arbitration right now on the case, and we can discuss it there if you wish, but thus far you've chosen not to. Maybe you should consider presenting your case, instead of badgering me about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your understandable frustration

Hey man, don't let them get to you. I think you're doing a fine job and you've been one of the clear thinkers in the DS case. Keep up the good work and don't leave! - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not leaving. I just said it was enough to make me consider it. I'm not actually going anywhere. It's just another article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say "ditto" to Nuggetboy's comments above about your recent problems with Supreme_Cmdr. I'm staying out of the whole "use of Usenet files" controversy; my problem with SC is based on the conflicts I've had with him and Warhawk over simple format changes, as shown here (I was the anon in that section), here and more recently here. In the last case, I think SC missed (or possibly ignored) my point entirely, that he looks foolish when he's arguing that Usenet posts are not a reliable source on the Smart page, then uses them repeatedly as examples when he's character assasinating another editor. In addition, the statement that "they can't deal with the fact that the man is a pure genius" seemed a tad obsessive. Anyway, keep a stiff upper lip. Cardinal2 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm pleased that based on the AN/I response that at least other uninvolved admins have seen it and agree with my stand. I'm having a tough time right now, I just lost my grandfather to a long and painful battle with several terminal illnesses, so it's not the best day for me to be dealing with all this. Hopefully when I return from the funeral this will all be resolved. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"My substantive issue with this case is 1) to get ArbCom to rule on the inclusibility of disputed links 2) to take action against the personal attacks and incivility on both sides 3) to enforce a cessation of the edit warring that is disrupting the page." I think these are laudable goals. For what it's worth, I am defending Supreme Cmdr (where such defense seems warranted) because it seems to me that almost no one else is. Supreme Cmdr is by no means blameless, and I know that, and I hope my comments have made that clear, but I do not think that justifies what I perceive to be a lynch mob mentality. As it happens, my grandfather, who was my second-closest relative after my mother, died on Sunday. I am not one for expressing sentiment to people (or about people) whom I do not know, but you do have my sympathy. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 18:49Z

I am not saying that she does not deserve censure. I think she probably does. But I do not like to see anyone railroaded, and it seems to me that on at least one occasion, Supreme Cmdr has been treated unfairly by admins in a distinctly railroad-like manner, which has only exacerbated the problem. If I need to play devil's advocate to try and keep the wheels of justice on an even keel (mixing my metaphors), that seems like a small price to pay. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 19:06Z

Well despite that I disagree with your stance, I can't flaw your reasoning, nobody should be railroaded, and you should be commended for trying to ensure justice prevails. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy ho

Sorry for the late return of the message, I took a few months off. But I'm back, hope you're editing well! Teke ^(talk) 03:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Commander

I think you erred in refering to Supreme Commander as an article of interest for the Cmdr. That game is not a Smart production and to my knowledge the Cmdr has not edited it. However, he certainly has been a presence at Smart's other games such as Universal Combat and Battlecruiser3000, and I think that is what you meant. Cheers--Beaker342 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I did exactly that. Must have switched in my head the article with his name. At least I got Universal Combat right. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Goatopia

"Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Goatopia) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)"

Hi,

Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I am kind of new to editing numerous articles. I will definitely keep in mind the nonsense articles in the future and avoid editing. Regards.

Wiki Raja 07:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1942 nom

Hi, you might be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods afd. Bfelite 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light relief

Hi Swatjester, if you need a laugh, you might be interested in this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Devin79&diff=prev&oldid=100169349 Regards, Jdorney 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Could I interest you in running again for adminship soon? I'd be happy to nominate you. JoshuaZ 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to do it. My admin coaching kinda stalled out, but yeah, I'm willing to give it another shot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

Ok, I've started a page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swatjester (2). Feel free to accept whenver you want. JoshuaZ 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart page unprotected?

I dropped by the Derek Smart page yesterday and found that someone had removed the page protection, even though the Request for Arbitration isn't complete yet. Granted, it's in a motion to close, but it's apparently been that way for a while, and I'm not about to prod the arbitrators.

Anyway, it appears that shortly thereafter, an anon account proceeded to make an edit that is almost word-for-word the same as SC's and WarHawk's edits before the protection was instituted. The SEC statement was altered, the Ars Technica statement was removed, and some more info on a new game was added.

You seem to have had experience with these specific areas of contention. Any thoughts on what to do here? Cardinal2 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for not being online when you left your message. It appears our friend Derek got to the page before any admins did. -- Steel 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lincoln template

Ohh, thank you so much for reminding me! It's a stupid typo mistake, because at first I intended to write "he's the greatest US president" but then I'm afraid such claim may make some people feel annoyed so I changed to "one of the greatest US president(s)". The result is I forgot to change to plural as you see. Again, thank you, I will fix it. Causesobad → (Talk) 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knifers

You need to stick an afd notice on Knifers and log it as up for delete here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, otherwise the afd is not valid and the page you created will probably be deleted (but do it properly and I will vote to delete), SqueakBox 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you have done it now, you should have afd it first then created the other page. Cheers, SqueakBox 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I read your bit in the other cannabis article and then couldnt find the afd notice or the log, chasing around looking at your contribs and then suddenly it weas sorted. An edit conflict, SqueakBox 22:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately keep my archive page that way but I am thinking about giving an explanation at the top of the page. I wish everyone else did as archived pages are difficult to search through. IMO while humans like short pages computers like long pages, so say in a years time I want to find what you said I just type in the word Jester and I will find your comment, SqueakBox 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations!

I'm going to be asleep when your 100% support RfA passes, so I'd like to say well done now! You must be really proud of your result! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions about using them and I will do my best to answer. Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well done. -- Steel 01:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Swatjester! If you need any help with the admin tools, feel free to contact me on my user talk page. Now get to work on those backlogs! =) Nishkid64 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Many congrats, Swatjester... let the vandals have it for me, will you? Heimstern Läufer 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Now run over to CSD where we have backlog :) JoshuaZ 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG YES I've been there all freakin' day. Cannot get it under 100 articles, they spawn, I swear they do! KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I knocked out a couple dozen. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to check the articles! Someone had listed Perazzi, which was a crappy little stub, but a stub not an advert (was tagged as "spam" - this with NO copy which read like a brochure, and about 80k Ghits for Perazzi shotguns.) I did what I could to get the newbie who started the stub off to a decent start - no one had even posted a welcome message. bah. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I have, and been checking the histories and the contributor's talk page too. Came across at least one that I removed the CSD tag on, and another that I wasn't too sure on so I just left it alone. But thanks for the advice, I'd love some puppy style admin coaching! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. So stalk me.
2. You know where my talk page is located. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Woot! Teke ^(talk) 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 69.144.120.6

I see you blocked 69.144.120.6 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) with an expiry of 24 hours for the most recent vandalism spree. You may not have been aware that this user has been blocked 7 times before escalating to 1-month blocks, and shows a dearth of positive contributions. You may wish to extend this block. —Dgies^t c 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lin-wood High School

Hi, I noticed you removed the db-bio template on this article. Are you suggesting that the article asserts sufficient notability or just that a school is not a proper subject for the "bio" tag? Thanks! -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, will do. Cheers! -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jellybeans

You have been awarded these Jelly Beans from User:-The Doctor- I hope you enjoy these Jelly Beans.

Here are some Jelly Beans for you.. I love Jellybeans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar.. But on the other hand just recieving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy.. I hope to spread the Jellybeans all over Wikipedia so here you can have this lot.. I hope you enjoy these Jelly Beans.. (I Like the Lime ones)

Editors need a bit of a Sugar Hype too..

An Apple a day keeps -The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYS

Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, there's no end to the excitement. :-) I've left him to archive as he pleases. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea at all, I'm glad to say. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request unprotection

Hi

Was just trying to find someone who could help me... I'd like to request de-protection of Suzanne Khan, because it re-directs to the wrong person. I've already put in a request on its talk page Talk:Suzanne Khan, just wondering if you could have a look....

Thanks! xCentaur | ☎ 09:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked briefly at it. I'm not going to unprotect it, due to the AfD recreations it's faced in the past. It MIGHT be deserving of a protected edit to the other name, but I honestly didn't give it enough of a glance. It's almost 5am here. It can wait until tomorrow. I'll try and check it at some point tomorrow and make a decision on it, but if you can get someone else before that, that's cool too (just let me know). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzanne_Khan. Thing is, she has established herself since then, as her actual WP page Sussanne Roshan notes. Its just a matter of re-directing this page to her actual article, instead of her husband's. Either way, no problem, I'll wait for you then, have a look whenever you can. Cheers! xCentaur | ☎ 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, make requests for unprotection (and for protection, both full and semi) at WP:RFPP - that way you don't have to "go looking". KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Explain

You have been posting around the place this sort of thing:

[edit] rfa thanks

Thanks for the support on my RFA. It passed successfully with just under WP:100 supports and 1 oppose. I look forward to serving the community as an admin.

I don't get it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Swatjester (which you link to) it says the application failed. What gives?

Albatross2147 12:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Second nom. The one linked to closed as no consensus (not failed) in April 2006. The recent successful nom is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Swatjester (2). KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:HanzoHattori

Could you direct me to a recent personal attack made by Hanzo which justified this block? The block does not appear to show what attack it is based on. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, got it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring/tutoring him? Am I? If I was, I've forgotten. I have been trying to keep a bit of an eye out on him, although I haven't had a whole lot of time for Wikipedia lately. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock attack reverting

Thanks for the revert on my User Page. Cheers! --EarthPerson 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I got them a few times too on here as well ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 66.91.112.18

He appears to be using an account on another ISP to get around the block. See Special:Contributions/72.235.14.99. Both IPs trace back to Honolulu[1][2]. Cheers, cab 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Back as a registered user User:Swatpig (talk | contribs) and continues the exact same behaviour. [3] cab 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from that guy whose nom was right above yours

Hi, Swatjester, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. Hope you're having as good a time using the new admin tools as I am. :-) If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 07:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reggae Reggae Sauce

I don't think that article was spam! It's certainly notable enough for an aricle, so I doubt that it was created by the maker.

85.210.63.238 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree! I helped develop that article from an advert-style to a more informative neutral style so why was it deleted? This is a product that's being developed which people might want to know about when it's released. It's like deleting an article on Heinz Ketchup because 'articles about condiments must be spam'. MathiasFox 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an advertisement. Furthermore, wikipedia is not for products which are under development which people "might" want to know about when it's released. Wikipedia is for notable products that can be included in an encyclopedic fashion. You may want to review our notability guidelines and what wikipedia is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've checked that page and can't see any reason why the article was deleted. It states that Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising, which is exactly why I changed the content of the article from advertisement to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is a place for reference and recently people have been talking on the radio and TV about this product but yet you'll refuse to have Wikipedia hold information on it, despite it being neutral and unbiased? This makes very little sense. MathiasFox 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has inclusion standards for notability as well. Reggae Reggae sauce may be an "up and coming product" but it's not famous and notable yet, and as such is not suitable for inclusion. Furthermore, the article was unsourced, and essentially a ripoff of the also deleted Levi Roots article. Plus, this is the second time the article has been deleted for non notability.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did source the article with links to news websites. Are you sure you weren't looking at the old edit? This product is also very notable as it's been in the media a lot in the UK, in newspapers, on TV and on the radio. I never even looked at the Levi Roots article when I wrote it so how it's a rip off, I've no idea. Are you REALLY sure you're not referring to the previous edit of the article which was tagged with all these problems? MathiasFox 12:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's as highly notable as you say, there should be a lot of sourced information about the article. However, the version I deleted had barely any, and none that were directly related to the article itself (other than the reggae reggae sauce website). I actually didn't even look at the version that was highly tagged. I saw that it had been AFD'd, and deleted, and then the new version of it was not substantially different, so I deleted it again. You may want to check out the main AFD page, and then look at the notability guidelines that have been established (there are a bunch on there). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

see link [4]. 4,000 bottles is not notable. It's not in mass production, and has not yet been picked up by a major supermarket. Nothing about the sauce is notable. Sorry, it just doesn't meet the notability guidelines. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You just owned yourself with that link! You linked to a story on This Is London about the sauce to prove it's not notable? TO make things worse for you, the article is about the sauce being picked up Sainsbury's. RichardJohn 14:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. 4,000 is still notable. It's still not been picked upby any major supermarket. Still not notable. Still not self-owned. Thank you for playing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If Sainsbury's is not a major supermarket then I don't know what is. Glad to see the page has been rightfully restored. Give up, mate. Tilefish 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanbox blanking

Thanks for reverting the blank on my sandbox, it was me who blanked it out buy I did not sign in. my mistake. Thanks any way. On a related note I aseem to have a problem with a user who is stalking my edits, what is the process to take care of this problem ? Thanks RaveenS 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] government documents cannot be copyrighted?

Where did you hear that? Works of United States federal government employees are excluded from copyright protection by a specific statute that only covers US federal government employees. It does not cover state or local governments. Is there another law you're relying on? --Butseriouslyfolks 07:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you point me to a citation for that rule? I haven't heard it before. It also conflicts with what is stated on WP:C: "Also, most state and local governments in the United States do not place their work into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work." Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See also http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part3/: "Whether a state can copyright its works is a different matter. Unlike the U.S. government, a state government's works are subject to copyright." --Butseriouslyfolks 19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, no problem. Most copyright issues (whether here or downloading music, posting videos, etc.) seem to come up not because people don't care, but because the area is so complex you almost need a lawyer to figure out whether or not you are in violation. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD A7 at 9412 (Internet radio station)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 9412 (Internet radio station). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Haikupoet 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what's up with the deletion here. As far as notability goes, it's a station that's been on the iTunes Radio service for quite a long time (at least two years) and it's the number one item on a Google search for "9412", which would seem to indicate to me that it's at least a fairly popular station. I actually would have contested deletion on those grounds had I known it was up for deletion in the first place. Haikupoet 21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It made no assertion of notability. That was the reason. Were it to have asserted notability, instead it would have been nominated for Articles for Deletion for failing to meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Google ranking is not a measure of notability, and being an iTunes radio station, in of itself, is not necessarily notable. A brief google search [5] indicates 68 hits for "9412 radio", of which only 23 are unique, and not all of those are valid pages (some are bookmarks, some are spambots etc.).⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Morikami Park

Have you seen this? -- Donald Albury 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

Believe me, I appreciate that. I'm working on an outside-the-box fix for the situation, but it's still in the nascent stages as of yet. It's going to be more work than I expected, but I'm hoping to be able to get it together. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just started working on it and I have to figure out what I'm doing, so it's premature to start promoting it publicly, but since you asked, take a look at http://myschool.wikia.com. I'm hoping it will give the fanatic inclusionists (and others) a viable outlet. Feel free to contribute any way that you can. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a long shot, but I don't think there will ever be consensus on a school policy, which means an endless stream of cookie cutter deletion debates. I'm trying to think of ways to make it BETTER than what WP lets us do with school articles, but I'm not sure how to go about that. I wouldn't mind if they listed teachers and/or made it into an alumni directory. There's no MYSCHOOL:WWIN policy (at least not yet)! Maybe if it turns into something more useful for school articles, people will be less concerned about forcing them into WP. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unitrans

While the bus system itself is arguably notable, I don't think the individual buses even come close. On the other hand, there is not one source in the lengthy history section, and most of the balance of the article is a just list of buses, so maybe Unitrans should be deleted on that basis.

I've seen similar series of articles listing all the engines that ran on this or that train line but never one for a college bus service. In particular, I don't see how anybody could seriously argue that two specific buses purchased for spare parts and never actually used to transport passengers belong in Wikipedia.

Also, there are almost no links to the individual bus articles other than from Unitrans and the author's page, although the articles are of fairly recent vintage.

There's an active user maintaining these articles, and he's obviously spent a lot of time on them, so it's going to be contentious. I think on that basis alone they should go through the AfD process. I would nom the individual bus articles based on WP:N and Unitrans on WP:V.

Is that what you were thinking? --Butseriouslyfolks 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I wouldn't think of taking the hit for you stealing your thunder on that one!!! ;-) Have a great vacation! Let me know when you decide to tackle them though and I'll support your noms. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RV related to Tevanian

Swatjeser: Thanks for the lengthy comment, however my page had been attacked without explanation and I had to do a lengthy investigation to find out that two people, including yourself/sockpuppet, were retaliating because a legitimate edit I had made to the Tevanian article. A more appropriate place for a discussion would have been on the Tevanian page, and the false accusations were totally uncalled for, especially considering that the reason for the retaliation was not initially clear to me.

Also, you mentioned that the Tevanian article and my RV cleanup was the reason my RFA had failed. You are mistaken. The RFA failed due to other reasons regarding minimum contribution requirements to Wikipedia which I currently do not meet. The quality of my contributions, and my response to RV has been exempulary and you are free to research that here -- Your assumption that the RFA failed because of your disagreement with me is highly presumtious and exhibits the very nature of the problem we have here, which is that you are using your preconceptions and presenting them as fact -- is Wikipedia the right place for this? I am sure you know the answer to that.

Excuse me, but did you just call me a sockpuppet? Or am I reading that wrong? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling Swatjester a sockpuppet is very serious. You need to clarify whether or not that is what you meant. If you are calling him a sockpuppet, you need to either provide very good evidence for that charge (and I would be very surprised, indeed, if you have any), or apologize to Swatjester. -- Donald Albury 01:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need an apology. I just want clarification. It's pretty obvious to everyone that I'm not a sock of anyone. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I need some clarification if possible, explain how this is a personal attack: "The trash you posted is old I was already blocked for that. sorry, hater." Thanks.

[edit] Babe Ruth

Thank you for reverting the editorial about Ruth's record being "tainted" due to baseball being segregated. I found Bob Jenkinson's book about Ruthian homers recently, which puts that notion to the lie. The fact is, Ruth was the greatest slugger the game has ever seen or likely ever will see. He was also a terrific pitcher, as is well-known. And at least in his younger years before he got really chubby, he was an excellent fielder and baserunner. In short, he could do everything. He was the "real" Roy Hobbs. And I don't even like the Yankees. But I like power hitting, and although he crushed my Cubs in 1932 (on a 490-foot "called shot" homer at Wrigley) I've become a Babe Ruth fan over the years. d:) Wahkeenah 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adminship

the link at the top of your page goes to a failed RFA. could you provide the link of the successful RFA? thanks. 66.92.170.227 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, its [6] but keep in mind that's a historical archive, and should not be modified. Cheers. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds

A Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds' birthplace has been opened at Talk:Burt Reynolds#Request for Comment. -- Donald Albury 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adminship

the link at the top of your page goes to a failed RFA. could you provide the link of the successful RFA? thanks. 66.92.170.227 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, its [7] but keep in mind that's a historical archive, and should not be modified. Cheers. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds

A Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds' birthplace has been opened at Talk:Burt Reynolds#Request for Comment. -- Donald Albury 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reggae Reggae Sauce

I don't think that article was spam! It's certainly notable enough for an aricle, so I doubt that it was created by the maker.

85.210.63.238 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree! I helped develop that article from an advert-style to a more informative neutral style so why was it deleted? This is a product that's being developed which people might want to know about when it's released. It's like deleting an article on Heinz Ketchup because 'articles about condiments must be spam'. MathiasFox 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an advertisement. Furthermore, wikipedia is not for products which are under development which people "might" want to know about when it's released. Wikipedia is for notable products that can be included in an encyclopedic fashion. You may want to review our notability guidelines and what wikipedia is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've checked that page and can't see any reason why the article was deleted. It states that Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising, which is exactly why I changed the content of the article from advertisement to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is a place for reference and recently people have been talking on the radio and TV about this product but yet you'll refuse to have Wikipedia hold information on it, despite it being neutral and unbiased? This makes very little sense. MathiasFox 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has inclusion standards for notability as well. Reggae Reggae sauce may be an "up and coming product" but it's not famous and notable yet, and as such is not suitable for inclusion. Furthermore, the article was unsourced, and essentially a ripoff of the also deleted Levi Roots article. Plus, this is the second time the article has been deleted for non notability.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did source the article with links to news websites. Are you sure you weren't looking at the old edit? This product is also very notable as it's been in the media a lot in the UK, in newspapers, on TV and on the radio. I never even looked at the Levi Roots article when I wrote it so how it's a rip off, I've no idea. Are you REALLY sure you're not referring to the previous edit of the article which was tagged with all these problems? MathiasFox 12:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's as highly notable as you say, there should be a lot of sourced information about the article. However, the version I deleted had barely any, and none that were directly related to the article itself (other than the reggae reggae sauce website). I actually didn't even look at the version that was highly tagged. I saw that it had been AFD'd, and deleted, and then the new version of it was not substantially different, so I deleted it again. You may want to check out the main AFD page, and then look at the notability guidelines that have been established (there are a bunch on there). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

see link [8]. 4,000 bottles is not notable. It's not in mass production, and has not yet been picked up by a major supermarket. Nothing about the sauce is notable. Sorry, it just doesn't meet the notability guidelines. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You just owned yourself with that link! You linked to a story on This Is London about the sauce to prove it's not notable? TO make things worse for you, the article is about the sauce being picked up Sainsbury's. RichardJohn 14:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. 4,000 is still not notable. It's still not been picked upby any major supermarket. Still not notable. Still not self-owned. Thank you for playing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If Sainsbury's is not a major supermarket then I don't know what is. Glad to see the page has been rightfully restored. Give up, mate. Tilefish 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was not restored, it was recreated. I'd delete it again, but I've already nominated it for AFD, we'll let some other people discuss it first. As for "give up", there was nothing to give up. An non-notable article was deleted. Chill out, "mate". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offer to mediate "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"

Thanks for offering to do informal mediation with these parties. I hope they work with you to resolve their conflict. Take care, FloNight 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion recreation

I believe you deleted this article per the AfD discussion, and the main proponent has recreated it. I thought a deletion review process would be in store if there was objection to the AfD process. Can you clarify what's happening here? Thanks! --Keesiewonder ^talk 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have redeleted the article and yes, Deletion review is the correct process. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but, I'm sorry to say it's back. --Keesiewonder ^talk 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent; I see you've taken care of this for now ... --Keesiewonder ^talk 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New South Wales University Theatrical Society

Hi...you've recently relisted this AfD to generate further discussion... I'm still concerned this AfD has not been listed as a second nomination: the first result was keep. ( 1st Nomination discussion.) Aren't all 2nd nominations meant to be clearly marked for those who do not read everyone else's statements, but prefer to simply look at the article and respond? Can AfDs be closed and relisted, or do 1st nomination dates have a natural expiry date? I'm still fairly new and curious, thanks. Regards, --Greatwalk 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Er huh? According to the article, [9], it says "This article is being considered for deletion for the 2nd time in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." That seems pretty clearly marked to me. The link goes to [10] which is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New South Wales University Theatrical Society (2nd nomination)". It seems pretty clear that it is a second nomination.

As for the relisting procedure, all AFD's have a 5 day period. On the 5th day, if a clear consensus is reached, the article is kept or deleted or whatever the consenus was. If no clear consenus is reached on the 5th day, or if not enough people have offered an opinion on the article, it can be "relisted", which simply extends the current nomination beyond another 5 days, it doesn't make it a new one. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Very strange: I wonder how come the 2nd nomination info doesn't show up here, in the Australia related forum? Oh well.... Thanks. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably because whoever included it there messed up. Oh btw, I'm working on your issue with deleted material on Lunisolar calendar now. I believe Pak21 is confused. See my comments on his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I think Pak may have been partially correct, though. Aside from returning the links and references to the calendars, I did come back at a second time and attempt to merge material from Simple lunisolar calendar and Hermetic leap week calendar because I thought they would make good examples and both articles were quite short. I thought I was being WP:Bold, but both articles were still under discussion on the AfD boards (no decision had been made, but both were later deleted). I still think they were fine, but Pak (though tending to be a bit rude) is probably correct...I shouldn't have merged the material. The copyvio he refers to was me not crediting the original material. My reaction was mostly due to the fact he threatened further punitive action, instead of checking to see if a mistake had occurred first.

If you could revert the article back to include the links (redlinks and external) and passing mentions of the calendars, I'd appreciate it. (That's the way the article was to begin with. Also, I'd like to hear back if you think the merged material is suitable. It's kind of you to think to do this. Warm regards, --Greatwalk 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I really, really suggest you learn what the GFDL says before you go any further. To quote from the Guide to deletion: "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression." The GFDL requires that all material be attributable to its original author; because the original has been deleted, that information is no longer available (to the general reader), so it is a copyright violation. Section 4(B) of the GFDL if you're really not aware of it. --Pak21 08:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I understand: that means I can ask for temporary undeletions of all the removed articles to retrieve the authors Wikitags ('names') and merge the content back to appropriate parent articles? If so, fantastic! (Win-win situation). Regards, --Greatwalk 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Easier would just be a history-only undelete. However, at least for Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar, there was a clear consensus at AfD against merging the material (all of myself, Black Falcon and 4.246.200.154 recommend against merge), so I would ask you why you believe there is a consensus for this action?

It strongly believe it is still a copyright violation. That material was not written by you (or Greatwalk, therefore neither of you can add it to any article without crediting the original author as required by section 4(B) of the GFDL. --Pak21 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... I believe the material is a direct copy from the deleted articles Simple lunisolar calendar and Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar. Will you please check for me? --Pak21 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I realise that. However, the history is not viewable by a non-admin (ie 99.999% of the world's population). This does not satisfy the attribution requirement. --Pak21 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As you've now seen, the consensus on the adminstrator's noticeboard is that that the attribution must be publicly viewable, despite your assertions to the contrary. Personally, I am somewhat shocked that an admin involved in the deletion process could have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the GFDL. --Pak21 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, I'm well aware of how the deletion process works, and the difference between notability and verifiability. I have explained the reasoning for my removal of the deleted information at Talk:Calendar reform#Mention_of_proposed_calendars; this action has been confirmed as correct ("On the other hand, if Pak had provided an edit summary that justified removal of the information based on the absence of an appropriate reference, that would be irrefutably correct.") by User:Hesperian at User talk:Greatwalk#Calendars. --Pak21 08:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmmm....I think that quote may be a bit out of context, given prior discussions with other editors about the suitabity of these references, the terms of WP:Consensus and the fact that similar edits made by other editors exist on other pages Pak has chosen not to revert. IMO...I'm curious to know, though. Regards, --Greatwalk 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact I have not reverted every such action across all of Wikipedia does not mean that it is incorrect to revert such edits in one article. WP:INN et al. --Pak21 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pak, you appear to be quite handy with guidelines except for WP:Consensus, but still tend to ignore all points made that you can't refute completely (as above), so I find you quite difficult to communicate with in any real sense of the term.

You have reverted all changes SwatJester made again, including the redlinks and external links that were there before, and I still do not understand your reasoning in doing so. In the interest of consensus, I'd like to hear from others on this point...I'm not interested in more reverting, and suspect it is wrong to keep doing this regardless. --Greatwalk 09:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And I don't believe the result of Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar was 'against' a merge. --Greatwalk 09:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AI

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, AIV is for vandalism, not content disputes and not for gaining an upper hand in an edit war.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this quite unhelpful. Repeatedly removing sources and text from the same page without explanation is not what one does in a "content dispute" it is vandalism. Perhaps I should have been more patient and given the prescribed warnings, but considering the history... and the eventual outcome...

The real question is why are you leaving this note on this page when I'm the one who posted to AIV? Oh well, at least some other editors stepped up and took care of this. -MrFizyx 22:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Its moot. Thanks for correcting the error on biochemnick's page. -MrFizyx 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet troll squads

Please see that Biophys removed a tag for deletion although there is no any dispute on the deletion discussion talk page. Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_troll_squads&diff=prev&oldid=115829443. Vlad fedorov 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tim Ingold

Regarding your warning messsage put on my talk page:

1. I have no memory of any recent edit on the article. If it's an older edit, I can't find it in my edit record either
2. Secondly, the page seems to have been deleted, so I have no means to find out the exact reason either
3. Your message on my talk page is posted as a subsection of another completely non-related message. And I do not expect such naivity from an admin.

So, unless you give me any hint of the violation, I do not have any clue to the situation. Thanks for your clarification. --IslesCape^Talk 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I can figure out your mistake in putting the message in wrong section, but what I still can't figure out is on what grounds have I been issued a warning for copyright violation? If I don't know the exact reason, how can I avoid it in future? If you can't find out on your own, pls suggest a suitable person/way to find out. --IslesCape^Talk 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for coming back to you, but the problem is that I have a copyright infringement tag stamped on my talk page which is not a pleasant sight, and I want to make sure not to have a repeat of such incident.

• I can't find any history of my edits to the page, which means that I cannot locate my exact edits. There was no intentional violation. It was probably among my earlier contributions on WP while learning the ropes, and hasn't been on my watch list.
• What I would like to know is whether WP:C was followed?
• If so, why I wasn't notified of the situation earlier?
• And it wasn't either posted on WP:CP!

In this situation, I would appreciate if you could restore the article and allow the situation to be redressed. Thanks --IslesCape^Talk 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lying Liars

Hi SwatJester,

My frustration may have been partially based my misunderstanding you. At one point, you said: I think we can go ahead and include everything that is not struck out, with the exception of the plagiarism section which we should rework a little bit more before including. Any objections? ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 16:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understood it, that referred to a draft to which there were still numerous objections, and to which new items had recently been added. I was frustrated that you would take that approach so quickly, and surprised that other editors seemed to be allowing that text to mostly stand. But it seems like I might have misunderstood what was going on.

Since then, you have started what seems like a very workable system, in which we can discuss individual items, and clearly see what conclusions are being reached. Now that I understand where you're going with this, I can see that my post may have been an overreaction. I'm happy to work within the system you've proposed.

Thanks for your help in keeping us focused. -Pete 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] experience

I certainly hope you are not arguing that your thousands and thousands of edits make you somehow a better reader than me. Because that IP has productively edited Black people, including reverting vandalism.

The comment is a legitimate question: are the articles being handled differently? It happens to be one I don't have an answer for - as I've only glanced at White people and have not edited it. I happen to think it is ok if the articles are handled differently. But that doesn't make the question wrong.

You think there is reverse racism? Address it on his talk page. After a gazillion edits I would have thought you would have figured that out. Jd2718 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never claimed such. Please don't get me wrong. Nor do I say that the IP is a vandal or anything of the like. However, I'm saying that it WAS an uncivil comment, and thus I removed it. It was directed negatively at another user. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do as you will. I'm both tired and annoyed, which I recognize is probably more a reflection on my need to sign off than anything else. Good night. Jd2718 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

On AN, you wrote about a user: "Has anyone noticed that he's not actually contributing to the encyclopedia, and just social networking? No constructive edits since October of last year? It's time for a "time-out" block for this kiddy." My question is: what do you feel should be done to users who go months (or years) at a time without contributing anything, mainspace, userspace, or anywhere? I presume (hope) the answer is nothing; it would be crazy to block people from editing for not editing. Personally, I don't see what the difference is. Is perfecting one's signature or signing autograph books harmful? Of course not—and a person who does those things exclusively is actually closer to becoming a mainspace contributor than someone who isn't active at all, since they are engaged, right? Why would we want to discourage them? Everyking 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)