User talk:Swatjester

Φ

Don't leave

If you want to take a break, then do, but don't leave completely. Corvus cornix_talk 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I got your point. :-) You're absolutely right. If it comes down to evidence of past attacks and disruption et al, let me know and I'll provide plenty of links and diffs to corroborate the chronic abusiveness of said editor. Maybe this will be the last straw to get him indef blocked like his closest pal and defender. Anyway, don't go and don't get too disheartened. You are appreciated, even if you feel more attacked than anything else at some times (Squeak can tend to make us feel that way). VigilancePrime (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I think you could be less combative at times (I suppose we all could), you bring a lot of sanity to the project. I hope you decide to stay. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, not another experienced administrator leaving :( Please take the time to consider a wikibreak, but your contributions have been well valued. Thanks for your hard (and rather difficult work). Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't, for various reasons, regularly add my voice to the "don't go" lovefests that often present themselves when a long-standing editor announces, usually (at least ostensibly) abruptly, and I am surprised to find that I do so here since I have, in the past, had occasion to be more than a little critical of you (principally, as you may recall, with respect to BLP issues, on which our views differ greatly, and a few OTRS items) and have suggested in some informal context that the net effect on the project of your being an admin might well be negative. Nevertheless, it is clear that you did not err here, and it is exceedingly unfortunate some reacted so poorly to your being eminently reasonable and acting rightly. Joe 08:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never had any dealings with you before this issue. I think you made an excellent call in reversing a deletion made under false pretenses. Such a deletion, for such an editor, cannot be made lightly & without scrutiny. Thank you for speaking truth to power in this matter. Stick around, help the project improve. Or at least, stay for the floorshow.  :-) --SSBohio 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not one to typically invoke an oh shit im leaving thing. I was fed up with Wikipedia last night, and decided to sleep on it to see if this is a project that I wanted to continue to contribute to. I came to the conclusion that it is not what it used to be, but it's not as far gone as I thought it was last night. Therefore, I'm going to give Wikipedia a last chance. I still 110% believe that I did the right thing last night, and I absolutely will not apologize for doing what the policies and guidelines allow and instruct me to do. I still believe that it's a copout that ArbCom has invoked power over this. I believe that it's beyond their authority. I believe that as editors we are not so dense and stupid as to be bound and gagged by assuming good faith. Good faith is not a suicide pact. When you have extensive reason to believe something is not legit, you don't owe it full weight and authority. I am still deeply hurt by the collective decision that my words and actions in following what the rules say, were wrong and that a user who has 14 blocks, a year long arbcom parole that he violated 5 times and was blocked for each time, and has a recent history of making misleading comments and even lies to get his way, was given the full weight and protection that this project can offer, while threatening desysops at me. Not only am I hurt by the collective decision, I've lost an extreme amount of respect for the "common sense" rationalizing abilities of multiple editors here, including at least one I had copious amounts of respect for before. But I'm not hurt enough to give up on this project. I thought about abandoning en.wp, and only working at commons, en.wikiversity, and latin wikipedia, but there is too much work that needs to be done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. (Glad you're still here, not glad that you had to go through all that, of course.) VigilancePrime (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

Another question, and I hate to interject on something personal, but what is "latin wikipedia"? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now you're on the English language Wikipedia. But there are Wikipedia's in many different languages. One such is the Latin Wikipedia, (or Vicipaedia Latina) which is written entirely in the latin language (lingua latina). I'm using it to help me learn latin. Sometimes people forget that Wikipedia is an amazing language learning tool. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, don't leave. I have been thinking about you lately (imagineselo) , I am not going to leave, and I hope you don't either. Lets just live and let live. FTR I have removed Perverted-Justice from my watchlist, do what you will. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

I hope that you are still around. I have seen you deal with many issues, and I am seeking your input. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rotten_Tomatoes_Critic_Blogs User:Vary is an admin. She felt that it was important to start an feud over the removal of a source for not meeting Wikipedia standards. Besides following me to other pages and provoking 3RR and then reporting it (4RR - 2 on two different days, so 2 reverts a day, with different set of information, but barely within the 24 hours so it counted as 3RR), she decided that she will not stand to deal with this source not being counted as legitimate. The complaint by myself and the problem held by others is that it is a document hosted by the Rotten Tomatoes website without an author or copyright information, and the information needed is not directly attributed in a quote to anyone, so there is no way to verify if it is legitimate. Even if it was verified, it would be seen as rumor, as the information (nickname of the Cloverfield (creature) being "clover" by the crew) would not be done by someone with authority to name the creature such). Instead of going to the reliable source forum (where there is no consensus supporting her), she went to the Wikiproject for Film, and had two people say they support Rotten Tomatoes as being verifiable. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Rotten Tomatoes.

However, her information lacks context for the discussion on the matter, and lacks any actual information, so their approval is vague at best. She then tries to claim that: "The editors at WP:FILM have overwhelmingly found this source acceptable and reliable.". Only two people spoke, and two people does not make a consensus. As an admin, she should know the various rules and know that she exaggerated the consensus spoke and is taking this personally, which is also against Wikipedia policy. I feel that this admin is no longer capable of doing anything but take this personally, and she refuses to take a Wikibreak. It has even affected her ability to edit, which is reflected on her contributions. If you notice, most of her additions in the past few days have been arguments over the verifiability of the link, without her actually proving that there is any proof behind her assertions. She is unable to answer a) who to attribute the source to b) how can we be sure its legitimate c) who of the crew actually called the creature "clover" and d) if that warrants being mentioned in the creature page since it is not the official name deemed by the Producer or Director. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and I seek to your input on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Give me a little bit, and I'll look into this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lighter Note

SWAT, on a lighter note (and since you were obviously online not long ago), could I trouble you to take a quick gander at this welcome template and tell me your thoughts on it as far as 1. appearance, 2. content/links, and 3. readability? I value your opinions and would like to get at least a couple sets of outside eyes on it before I start using it. Thanks bunches! VigilancePrime (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

I like it. I'd suggest under the "personal suggestions" section to add a bolded link to WP:V, because that is one of our most important policies, and IMHO one of the first things a new user should know. Verifiable and referenced materials are not likely to disappear shortly after a user contributes them, which is one of the chief complaints of new users (that they are reverted too fast). Also consider a small section on how to use the <ref>Reference</ref> tags and the Reflist template., as that will go even further to ensuring that new users reference their material. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Great catch! I added that in the how-to section and then moved it (WP:V) up along with WP:N and WP:RS, while putting the WP:Citing sources on the left with a comment. Hopefully, it maintains the formatting (even columns) and look. Thanks for your help. I think it's just about ready to be used. A little more tweaking as I notice little nit-picks here and there. Thanks again! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

By the way, are you, by chance, a WikiDragon? You seem like you would be or at least are similar. That's great. There's not many of us. (If not, that's fine too, cause you're still a great editor and admin and we appreciate you.) VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at all of those categories, and none of them seem to apply to me. For instance, I'm semi-wiki ogre'ish in that I edit in spurts, but my dry spells aren't long enough to qualify. I do make bold changes like wikidragons, but I also make little changes. I don't quite fit as a wikignome because while I do a lot of that kind of work with OTRS, I don't do anywhere NEAR as much as the editors I truly think of wikignomes. So, I'm somewhere in the middle. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand. I tend to do a lot of grammar correction, which is diametrically opposed to the classic WikiDragon MO, but I primarily make sweeping changes, I'm outspoken (much more now than I used to be), and I tend to defend those changes. Anyway, I incorporated your comments into the Welcome and I think I will start using it tonight or tomorrow. I can't see anything else that needs to be tweaked. Let me know if anything comes to your mind. I really appreciate your time and help in taking a look! Thanks!!! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 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) 01:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What?

Huh? Are you serious? Good thing I didn't look into the matter - I just acted on a request from a friend. Someone gets death threats (or should I say, "gets death threats yet again") and not only undelete the page, you use menacing language to tell me to undelete the page on procedural grounds? Surely you've read this? You are willing to sacrifice the safety of an editor simply because he used to wrong template?

The safety of editors is paramount. I can't believe that you would act in such a thoughtless, irresponsible manner. Your attitude to your fellow editors turns my stomach. I can't believe that anyone would act in the manner that you have. It's utterly disgusting. Guettarda (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this edit summary - you KNOW better. Personal attacks are not to be tolerated, even in edit summaries. Guettarda (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's you that needs to look more into the situation without making snap decisions. Had you looked into it, you'd find that there is actually no evidence whatsoever of there being any death threats, that he lied twice about the reason for deleting the pages. There were no death threats at all on his page, and had he been more clear about what he was doing instead of being disruptive, this would have been resolved much more easily. I mean, you're referring to an editor with 14 blocks, a year long arbcom parole, and an extensive history of being one of the most disruptive people on this project. So, if that's the kind of behavior that you condone, I don't want your "respect". I won't point out the sheer hypocrisy of you warning me about my edit summary, while leaving a message saying how I utterly disgust you. Pot, Kettle, you fill in the rest. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks despite a warning. Blocked. Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't block users you're in a despute with. Lara❤Love 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, If you really thought a block was justified, you should have asked your peers to look into it due to your involvement. Frankly I cannot see the benefit to this block, but I do see your direct involvement in this dispute. I would have reversed this block if it was not already reversed. . _(1 == 2)^Until 16:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)