User talk:Swatjester/archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AIV[edit]

I removed the vandal I reported on AIV because he's already been blocked. Why did you put it back? --Etacar11 19:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your revert took out my vandal posting. I'll go remove your vandal.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I realized that and fixed it, but I think our edits crossed each other. Sorry for the mix up! :) --Etacar11 19:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I'm a "she." :D --Etacar11 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must have. I deleted the one that I accidentally reinserted. It SHOULD be fixed now. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BHD[edit]

At the time 21 minutes 51-59 sec on the DVD, Garrison states something to the effect of 'I had requested light armour and AC-130 Spectre gunships, but Washington in all its wisdom decided against it.' Hrimfaxi 08:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot damn, you're right. I remember that part now. I was thinking you were referring to the ending credits. No problem then. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top posting[edit]

Hi, a post at the TOP. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! That was too far up! But the effort is appreciated! Energetic puppies sure can jump high!⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I suggest that you ditch the idea of getting people to post at the top. We spend so much time teaching newbies to post at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#General_standards, that someone actually trying to change that for their talk page is counter-intuitive, at best. Also consider Top-posting. With thousands of registered users and over 600 (possibly over 700) Admins all following guidelines and posting at the end of a page, swimming against the current will be problematical at best. The only other editor I know of who requests that posts be at the top is Light current, not someone I would necessarily care to emulate. Your decision, of course. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'd rather leave it, just cause it makes things easier for me to read, but if nobody follows it I won't make a big deal of it.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your desire to have new items at the top (which is how I sort my email, regardless of the system default), but I don't think you'll have much luck here, as it affects everyone who comes to read your page. One way to avoid dealing with bottom-posting is to just use your watchlist and look only at the diffs. That way, regardless of where the writer has placed their comments, it displays up at the top. --Habap 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do that already. It's just for convenience sake when I look back at the comments on the page, it's unnatural to me to have to scan from the bottom up to go from newest to oldest. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Vulgarities Legal?[edit]

Hey Swat, if a person uses a few choice words four letter words and the like, is against wiki policies? jVirus 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how. Is it in the vein of a personal attack? If so, then yes it's against policy because of the personal attack, not the vulgarity, as per WP:NPA.⇒ SWATJester 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig[edit]

Yep, seems to be working fine now. Looks pretty good. And thanks for think of me as being helpful. Sorry you were not in any need of help, though. ;-) See you around. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might not be working because a page cannot link to itself, so [[User talk:Swatjester]] turns to User talk:Swatjester when saved. You can try your signatures in your sandbox if you want. Your sig is your own preference. I personally hate sigs with images in them, but to each his own. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I got it working now, and figured out. You're dead on. I hope you don't hate my sig too much though, I put the icelandic flag in there in preparation for my future move to Iceland. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOC[edit]

Hm....where'd my ToC go? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 22:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't know you were watching here, but I've seen you around before a bunch of times, so hi! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLA[edit]

Not from Florida, I'm one of those imports. I live on the Space Coast currently. BTW, you do realize you can force a TOC right? You don't need four sections to see a TOC. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know. BTW, on an unrelated note, I'm thinking about nominating myself for an RfA in about 100-150 more edits. (I'm in the low 900's right now). What do you think? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because I saw your vote at RfA. Very few people succeed with less than 3 months and 2000 edits to their credit. Keep on voting and commenting at RfA and you will pick up on what people expect from a candidate for admin. NoSeptember talk 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, you're refering to my vote on Brainhell? Yeah. I'm holding off till I get a little more time, but I'm getting myself ready. Below is a link to my test application that I'll be modifying until I file an actual one. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swatjester/admintest (fixed link ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I saw your vote on sjorford. Get in the habit of adding an edit summary to every edit (even the minor ones) - it matters to some voters. Get involved in policy discussions and participate (at least experiment) in all aspects of the encyclopedia and the community, and never get in edit/revert wars, lose your cool or insult someone. Do that and you should have no problems applying in about 2 months. NoSeptember talk 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal. I've recently started getting involved into the projects, as well as policy stuff. I most always do edit summaries unless Wikipedia automatically fills them in for me. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


colors etc...[edit]

hey how do i get colors in my signature and the like. for instance when i put html ie jVirus in the signature box it prints that out exactly. I am doing something wrong. jVirus 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the box below the signature? It's something like "raw signature" or something? It needs to be checked. I just started by copying and pasting 3 or 4 people's sigs and then testing them out until I found a combination that I like and works. Check my userpage, it has the code for my sig. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmoderism[edit]

Hi,

Try this link for an interesting look at postmodernism: http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html

Good luck at NLP.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

third opinion[edit]

Thank you very much for your third opinion on the Brothers to the rescue page. I very much appreciate it and hope it will contribute to ending the revert war. Regards, Jens Nielsen 09:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP[edit]

Mentors have now been named. I am taking that article off my watch list unless otherwise requested. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Should I end my mediation then? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed this post - I would ask the mentors, if you have a question. IMHO you're doing some good there. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I'll stick around...kinda interested to see how this turns out. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page is better off with your presence. So long as you're getting something out of it, I'd keep going. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service[edit]

As a dyed-in-the-wool civilian, but child of two military brats (One Army (Field Arty), the other Navy (Medical Corps).), I go out of my way to thank veterans for their service to the country. MARussellPESE 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Which part of Iceland are you from??

Redhead310 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Charlotte[reply]

I'm not. I'm making plans to move there next year. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhawk Down trivia section[edit]

Why did you remove the paragraph on names on helmets? --Habap 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the information is wrong. Soldiers names are actually on their helmets, on the camo-bands. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know that. Was that the case at the time? (I never served, so I don't know.) --Habap 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on for who you're talking about. For the rangers, yes, because they were using PASGT helmets. For the Delta operators, they were using hockey or bicycle helmets, so no they didn't wear them, and delta doesn't generally wear name identifications anyway. The 10th mountain guys as well were wearing PASGT's, so they'd have it too. Can't speak for the marines that were there, and I know for a fact that the SEAL's that were there did not have any identification (and it was only after the fact that anyone realized they were SEALs.) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

opening attack[edit]

As per request. now registered Krait 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Like I said, we disagree on the content of that paragraph, but we came to a good compromise, and I'm just willing to bet that article will be semi-protected at some point, and you'll want to have a registered account so you can keep editing it. Plus many people (myself included) don't respect anonymous editors. Anon's don't have the right to participate in consensus votes either. Anyway, drive on airborne. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics[edit]

Hey, what took you there, and are you planning to stay? If so, be prepared to repeat yourself about 9 million times regarding sources, attributions, can we discuss the article and not the editors? and so on. OTOH it is much nicer than NLP. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the WP:3O page if I remember correctly. I'm not planning on getting in the article or the talk, but accusations of slander are my pet-peeve. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testing[edit]

I'm testing posting on your page using the "+" button, it's still going to the bottom buddy. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahhahah, did you miss Killer pups lecture bout that? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also missed the mantra "TRUTHINESS IS GODLINESS" in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but then again, I miss a lot of things. --Cyde Weys 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissention? Report to the ministry of swatjester for immediate reprogramming. -edit- doubleplusquick. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall report doubleplusunquickly (translation: in about 30 years). --Cyde Weys 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation[edit]

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, , Chairman, 12:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)
Wow.....how ironic. If by recently, you mean, last month.... ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats/copyvio[edit]

You quoted this link when you reported to WP:AN. I still cannot find any instance of a specific legal threat, and certainly no instance where he has said "I'll sue Wikipedia". What he said was "I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law": this is not specific enough to merit a ban. However a large part of the edit was obviously lifted directly from Socialist Worker—the copyright notice was even left in place—and was thus in violation of copyright (the licence is not GFDL compatible). If you know of any instances where this editor has specifically threatened to sue the Wikimedia Foundation or any specific Wikipedia user, I would be grateful if you could provide the diff. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really lifted that blatantly? Wow, I totally missed that. Ok so now I understand the copyvio issue. As for the "Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law" is an implicit threat, not explicit. Legally, it would still be considered a threat, in the US. As for wikipedia policy, while I understand that because he did not explicitly make the threat against wikipedia, it still, according to WP:NLT has the following chilling effects on free speech.

  • It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systematic bias in our articles.
  • It causes bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the Wikipedia community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently and with an assumption of mutual good faith.
  • Wikipedia has had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past, and by making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikipedia.

These are what in the US legal system are called "chilling effects", meaning that by his comment, he may have scared other users into NOT exercising their free speech and other rights on wikipedia. THAT is why we have a NLT policy. That was why I brought the issue up. Since the user is blocked, I don't think it really matters anymore now, but do you understand why I make the point that there WAS a problem? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all true, of course, but it is only one side of the story. If we take too wide a definition of a legal threat, we effectively exclude users from warning us of the legal consequences of our actions. It is not a legal threat to say, for example, "this is libellous": we need rather more people out there who pick up on libellous points in our articles so that they can be caefully considered. The same with copyright violation or, in this case, incitement to racial hatred (UK law). It is a PoV which deserves to be debated on a talk page. The policy page makes it clear that blocks are at the discretion of admins—it should not be an automatic indefinite block as some seem to feel, because this works against the idea of diffusing the dispute. Far better to persuade someone that their legal opinion is incorrect on wiki than to have to rebut it in court. Incidentally, the user who pointed out "this is libellous" got an indefinite block: by the time the Foundation calmed him down he really was ready to issue a writ. By jumping the gun, we merely make more work for the Foundation office and increase our risk of one day being sued for real.
As you mentioned, I managed to find a way to avoid applying WP:NLT in a case where I did not think it appropriate, and where (IMHO) it may just have have been counterproductive. I hope this answers some of your queries. Physchim62 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan T. Lee images[edit]

I'm afraid those images arent works of the federal government and therefore arent PD. LBL states: "COPYRIGHT STATUS: LBNL authored documents are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes. Commercial use of the documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws." Furthermore, I dont even know if those photos were created by LBL employees. Their presence here and on the nobel website suggest that they are "© the Nobel Foundation" (conincidentally both Image:Yuan T. Lee family.jpg and Image:Yuan T. Lee.jpg were photographed in 1986, the year he was awarded with the prize.)

so i originally uploaded the images believing to be PD, but found out later otherwise.--Jiang 08:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I figured since LBL was a government run organization, and it was on a .gov website that would work.

Regardless or not, as nobel laureate, Lee IS a public figure and you might be able to claim fair use due to that?⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBL is run by the University of California (as a contractor for the US govt).

The article already has too many images, so I think we can do without a few.--Jiang 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Interestingly enough, I know this about LBL because I just read "The Cuckoo's egg" which talked about it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you
Hello Swatjester, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It was successful and I hope to be a good administrator. Essexmutant 11:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War[edit]

Hi, I have issued a final warning to User:64.135.10.200 warning him to cool off and engage in rational discussion. I have also reverted the article back to the pre-edit war version and will continue monitoring developments. I hope you understand my reluctance to block anyone in situations such as this one, though I will do so if the anon continues to enage in personal attacks. In the meantime, perhaps it would be a good idea to consider how to incorporate the information on these developments into the article. Thanks. -Loren 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I doubt he'll cool off. I actually really don't care how the information gets put into the article, I was just more worried about the blatant misplacement of the edit at the top. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hello Swatjester, thank you for you support in my RfA. I was promoted with a final count of 48/1/0! If you see me making any mistakes, let me know ASAP. -- WB 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk_talk:Get-back-world-respect[edit]

ok, I removed the speedy tag. I hope you folks can all sort that out; it sounds like a mess and it's ugly to have it spill over like it did.

On another subject, I'm spending a fair amount of time on WP:RCP, and with all the crap I end up deleting I'm starting to take an anti-anon stance like the one you mention on this page... bikeable (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I hear ya. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- please don't continue that discussion with User:84.59.79.243 on my Talk page! thanks. bikeable (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sure. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFM-Request}}

Stop wasting your life![edit]

There are beautiful things to do, have kids, love others, write a book, build a house and do not waste your lifetime by harrassing other wikipedians. 84.59.79.243 23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you refused mediation, I requested arbitration. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration 84.59.79.243 23:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refused. You can't go to arbitration if you've left the project. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not leave the project until my page gets deleted. 84.59.79.243 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, I'm a bit young for kids, I love my girlfriend, I've got a book deal in the works (though it's a photojournal), and I've built houses for Habitat for Humanity.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I'll keep an eye on the arbitration and give a statement if it gets to that point; I doubt arbcom will take it up. I'm not very familiar with the process, but I think for now they just want statements from you and him. Tom Harrison Talk 04:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved: jerzy's formatting[edit]

Well, as I understand it they want statements from all parties involved, yes? Not sure if that includes you, but figure you should know that it's there. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had not known, and I appreciate the heads up. Tom Harrison Talk 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This line? OK. How do things seem to you now? You left a page name rather than a lk, which means you wouldn't notice it being red if you made a typo.... In any case, while TK's choice would not have been mine, it may be a good one in the long run. How can help? (Oh, i'll go lk at the med'n request.)
--Jerzy•t 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
_ _ My brain is still a little fried from the rapid-fire Db's and rv's on the first funny-name page. I see you left me a valid lk, and i think i actually followed it, marked the page as "taken care of" in my mind, and went to look at what looked like the title of another worrisome page. By the time i responded to you, i had let the one on the lk slip my mind. Sorry.
_ _ BTW, here's a little present: click here to leave a message for Swatjester. One reason for people not to comply previously is that it means editing the whole page, unless you know how to edit a WP URL. But even with this lk, you're inviting people accidentally messing up your above-the-line intro -- even without the confusing positioning of "...this line." So...
_ _ Consider (if i get what you're after) instead an organization like this, starting from the top of the page:

Arb Com[edit]

_ _ I see i am not a party to it, and don't see a way in which i am supposed to be able to participate. I'm not inclined to get more deeply involved than i already am, but within that and thus without trying to study up on what has gone on between you-all, perhaps i can serve as what one might call a negative character witness on him: that his behavior looks like someone who would describe the kind of oversight i've seen him need, the way he describes you. IMO you probably don't want to rush the process, so don't infer deadlines that aren't clearly stated, and stay cool.
_ _ Even if Wikipedia:Arbitration policy and wherever it leads me is extensive, i'll probably surface long enuf to give myself a break of working on yr talk page. Speaking of which, just before your sig, i've tentatively reworded

As of Feb. 16, the first person since I posted a similar request posted their talk comments at the top of the page like I asked. Let's see if these changes help. Paraphrased by Jerzy•t, as part of assistance welcomed by...

bcz i anticipated doing no rough draft. But why don't you edit it & return, so i can take out my silly micro-sig instead of worrying that i'd be forging in something of mine over your sig?
--Jerzy•t 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yr Tk page[edit]

_ _ Sure; i'm starting right after saving this. If there's any specific prefs other than convert it from a sample to a working page that preserves what was there before i came along, say so promptly on my talk page.
_ _ On point: i assume if people use the In Box, you intend to move it down below the archives once you've seen it; am i on the right track?
--Jerzy•t 03:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup, you got it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire!

Msg 2[edit]

Hi, SwatJ; who's that guy Jerzy down there, could i know them?

Msg 1[edit]

Hi from Jerzy. See how this lets them each put a hdg on what they leave, if they choose (and almost no one will leave a staddled-by-single-hyphens monster heading).
Hope you'll like the result; if not, and stripping it out is confusing, just drop me a note & i'll clean up after myself.
--Jerzy•t 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

If you haven't already, do note the good clear statement under "Talk page vandalism" at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. I think i'll try reading your submission to them, and maybe even GB's. But i've no sense of a role for me starting to emerge.
--Jerzy•t 04:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how this version of yr page feels[edit]

I started subordinating the hdgs on the moved msgs by one level, but didn't continue bcz it will work pretty well without, especially if you de-subordinate "Old messages and discussions", tho you could just throw it away instead. It may be a matter of personal taste; i like the clearer separation into groups.

Collection of older Jerzy stuff hanging around[edit]

This line? OK. How do things seem to you now? You left a page name rather than a lk, which means you wouldn't notice it being red if you made a typo.... In any case, while TK's choice would not have been mine, it may be a good one in the long run. How can help? (Oh, i'll go lk at the med'n request.)
--Jerzy•t 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
_ _ My brain is still a little fried from the rapid-fire Db's and rv's on the first funny-name page. I see you left me a valid lk, and i think i actually followed it, marked the page as "taken care of" in my mind, and went to look at what looked like the title of another worrisome page. By the time i responded to you, i had let the one on the lk slip my mind. Sorry.
_ _ BTW, here's a little present: click here to leave a message for Swatjester. One reason for people not to comply previously is that it means editing the whole page, unless you know how to edit a WP URL. But even with this lk, you're inviting people accidentally messing up your above-the-line intro -- even without the confusing positioning of "...this line." So...
_ _ Consider (if i get what you're after) instead an organization like this, starting from the top of the page:
....


Hi from Jerzy. See how this lets them each put a hdg on what they leave, if they choose (and almost no one will leave a staddled-by-single-hyphens monster heading).
Hope you'll like the result; if not, and stripping it out is confusing, just drop me a note & i'll clean up after myself.
--Jerzy•t 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yr Tk page[edit]

_ _ Sure; i'm starting right after saving this. If there's any specific prefs other than convert it from a sample to a working page that preserves what was there before i came along, say so promptly on my talk page.
_ _ On point: i assume if people use the In Box, you intend to move it down below the archives once you've seen it; am i on the right track?
--Jerzy•t 03:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yr Talk Struc[edit]

Great! I'm glad it came out. You could of course create some boxes (one around the edit-here lk would be the first i'd worry about, but you might also want to customize the others. Unfortunately, i'm just finally beginning to learn tables, so i have little specific advice!
--Jerzy•t 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jack Thompson Edits[edit]

Hi, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. In a recent edit to Jack Thompson you added this line: "As well as propagating the "video games defense," Thompson attempts to proactively link particular violent crimes to particular video games." and "Some consider Thompson to be a Fredric Wertham-like figure in the video gaming world. However, Thompson lacks Wertham's psychology background, and his actions have not led to a censorship movement; neither has he succeeded in connecting the media in question to violent crime in the eyes of the US Government." 

You might want to review Wikipedia's NPOV policy before making future article edits. Thanks. 203.112.2.212 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You are incorrect. I did not make any additions to the article that weren't already there. I only reverted to the last pre-vandalized version. Please investigate a little bit further before issuing warnings like that. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, that edit would not have violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please note the use of words like "Some". Also, as far as I can tell, everything so far in that edit is factually accurate.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA votes[edit]

Please add your vote at the bottom of the list. In some cases you are inserting your votes where it breaks up discussions. There is nothing special about being near the top anyway, Cheers, NoSeptember talk 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think there was a place it needed to be. For future reference, should your travels bring you back to my talk page, please insert comments into the inbox section first. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA votes, again[edit]

Why do you always use the same reason for supporting? I don't ever see you oppose an RFA, and it seems like you're not paying attention to the process. ... aa:talk 08:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I haven't seen a need to yet. If an obvious vandal applies for adminship, or someone I don't feel is appropriate, then no, they get a no vote. But I've voted so far on only people I think would do a good job given a fair chance, because it's supposed to be no big deal: admin is SUPPOSED to be given out liberally.Please don't insinuate that I don't pay attention to process. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please use the inbox at the top of the page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you think my comments are pointless and demeaning. What part was demeaning? Hopefully, my recent comments there have cleared up the situation for you a little. ... aa:talk 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have. See my long-winded response there. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input[edit]

Your input is requested here. NoSeptember talk 15:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



My RfA[edit]

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your voting![edit]

Thanks!
Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben's post[edit]

Can't say I like this system. If it takes too long to scroll to the bottom of your page, archive it. Anyway.

The quote you referenced:

Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. This should be no big deal.
  1. That edit was 3 years ago and things have changed.
  2. Your interpretation and mine may differ, but I think you have been voting 'no big deal' for people who have not been around for what I would call 'a while' and also for people who are not generally known to the community.
  3. I think you underestimate the damage a miguided admin can do

What works well for a small community doesn't always scale - there are very few editors who are known to most other editors these days.

That said, I think you have the right to vote any way you want. In effect, it's just your way of saying that the bar should be lower.

For my curiosity though, how often do you vote against, and for what reasons?

Regards, Ben Aveling 13:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ben....let me address your points like this.

1: I like the system. If followed, it is a way of quickly finding the newer messages amidst chaos, and assists archiving. It's easy if you just click the link at the top.

2: The quote: I'm not sure how much things have changed. Please see my long winded post on the RFA talk page: I don't think that it's right to deny admin based on "not around for a while".... If you have over 1000 edits within 2 months...you've probably learned the ropes already. Again, see why I have a "presumption of worthiness"....which I extrapolate from the WP:AGF rule.

3: Heh. Heheh. Ok, so there's a story. I was an administrator (actually developer) at a major internet forum, forums.firearmsmod.com Administrators there were the equivalent of 'Crats here. We had an active user base of over 5000 posters, and including guests it probably exceeded 10,000. We only had 15 admins. Well, one misguided admin used his privileges to ban the entire admin and development staff, shut down the website, steal all our source code, and is now using it to create his own program. I'm well aware of the dangers, and I think the wikipedia system of oversight by the eyes of the many solves this problem. Ever hear of the phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"? The question is "Who will watch the watchers?". The answer is more watchers to watch themselves.

As for my voting history: Off the top of my head, I have about 15-20 votes? Yes? Something like that. Out of those I'm sure that either 100% thus far, or all but 1 maybe have been support. I'd have to look it up to be certain. It's not that I'll never vote against. I just hold a strong presumption of worthiness, and I've yet to see an admin candidate that makes my eyes raise and say "You know, I bet he's going to mess things up", or "Oh that guy's a racist" or "Hmm...blatant vandalism warnings in the past?".....in those cases I'd decidedly vote no.

It's like I said earlier on the talk page: Why do vandals get 4 test warnings, several blatant vandalism warnings, multiple blocks starting at a mere hour, etc. and are STILL allowed to edit wikipedia even after all that......yet god forbid an editor with a history of say 1500 constructive edits and no history of vandalism or racism or anything like that should get some extra tools to help improve the encylcopedia. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update....I've opposed Karmafist's RfA. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Your signature is about five lines of wiki markup. It's also quite distracting. Please consider reducing it. Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first complaint I've heard of it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Extreme tolerance[edit]

You were asking why Wikipedia has such extreme tolerance of petty vandals and trolls. You may want to read these comments from Larry Sanger's history. In short, traditions, once established, tend to continue with little modification. NoSeptember talk 14:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It was a rhetorical question, and one aimed at exposing the difference in the tolerance level shown to vandals vs. that shown to admins.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Signature[edit]

Your signature is about five lines of wiki markup. It's also quite distracting. Please consider reducing it. Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is downright rude. Totally and needlessly combative. I came to your user talk page and hit the new section link. Deciding something I said was invalid because of where I placed it is totally ludicrous. Please drop that attitude now. Rob Church (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You came to my user talk page, and despite 2 links, and at least 4 comments pointing out the place where I'd prefer my messages to go, you still left a message in the wrong place, with a demanding and concilliatory tone. Had you done it in the proper place, I would have considered your idea much more favorably but given the lack of respect in your tone, the lack of respect in your placement, and your current tone, coupled with the zero other complaints I've had of the signature, I'm disinclined to change it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire!

I didn't read before posting. I do apologise, as I implied above. I maintained a neutral and respectful tone. In addition, just because you've had no other complaints, doesn't mean people aren't irritated with it. And your response to me is frankly childish and unacceptable. Rob Church (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is accepted, and I offer my own. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also accepted. Rob Church (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War[edit]

Hey SWAT,

I would appreciate your response to my comment under the "THEY WERE NOT CHILDREN" section.

Thanks,

--SeanMcG 08:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. I have not been monitoring that entry for some time, and my wikistress level has dramatically lowered, so don't expect me to get too involved anymore. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD DBTL[edit]

Yes; We're not here to publish fiction. I look forward to voting Delete. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be an AfD submitted with just the information and opinion you expressed in the post to me. We can notify the creator to see if he wants the page userfied (which can be done even after it gets deleted - since he hasn't posted for a week), but you are right that it doesn't belong in main space. NoSeptember talk 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I see you've gone ahead and AfDed it; I would have suggested the same. You must be psychic :). Nufy8 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Drowned Baby Timeline[edit]

Yes, sorry I took so long to get back to you on the AfD issue, but I think you did precisely the right thing, and I've casted a vote accordingly. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my successful Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raven4x4x request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nazis[edit]

I wonder why you are trying to insult people who are concerned about the fact that guns kill innocent people every day. Please rethink. Nameme 01:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you feel the urge to tell me this on my talk page? Cars kill innocent people every day. Alcohol kills innocent people every day. Polar Bears kill innocent people every day. But my job is to know how to properly employ and use firearms. Who are you to tell me that's wrong? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come onto my talk page with that kind of attitude again. If you wish to engage in a civil discussion about gun control, that's fine. But don't come onto my talk page spouting rhetoric. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied your "reply" here to keep the discussion together. Given that user templates shall not be divisive I do not understand why it should be hard to see that what you wrote is offensive. I am a bit puzzled by your reaction, which is just rude. You are free to hold your opinion, but please respect others who hold a different one. Cars were not invented to kill people, they serve a purpose. It lies in the nature of carnivore animals to pray. Mankind does not need canibalism. I agree with you about alcohol but would however object to anyone claiming on his user page that prohibitionists are Nazis. Nameme 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being rude??? You're the one who came onto my page to tell me that I need to change my userbox. I'm well aware that I'm free to hold my own opinion. Fancy talk of respecting others who hold differing opinions, as YOU are the one who came here telling ME to change mine. Furthermore, you defeat yourself with your own argument: Guns are a tool as much as cars are. They're a tool for food-gathering, a tool for hunting, a tool for signalling, and a tool for personal defense. I would claim just as much on my page that prohbitionsists are Nazi's too, were prohibition to not have been repealed in the 1920's. But it's been well documented that gun control leads to a repressive regime, and suppression of liberties. Hitler himself advocated gun control as a way of stopping the only real internal threat to his rise to power. When we look at the list of the most free and most liberal societies in the world, look how many of them have laissez-faire gun laws: Switzerland, Sweden, Finland etc. Switzerland actually MANDATES that it's militia keep fully automatic assault rifles with ammunition in their homes. And yet it has a very low crime rate. Israel? High gun ownership, relatively low crime (not counting political crime i.e. terrorism attacks). Compare South Africa to Uganda and Tanzania. South Africa is the only one of the three legalizing civilian firearm ownership, and notably has a drastically lower crime rate than the other two. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, while noted that Switzerland and Israel have high gun ownership and low homicide; Russia, Brazil, and Mexico have low ownership or all-out bans on private guns, but extremely high homicide. The one primary comparison leftist gun haters make – "England has gun control, and less crime" – is debunked as follows: England is seeing its crime rise with increasing gun control; America is seeing its rate decrease with less gun control. (copied from another website, as fair use for quoted discussion) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I am not too much into the topic of gun control, and I did not tell you to change your opinion. I just find it grossly offensive to call other people Nazis for holding a different opinion. I very much doubt that Brazil has low ownership of guns, I personally know someone who had a gun point to him at Copa Cabana where he was robbed by teenagers while hundreds of others were at the beach and did not show any interest. I remember Japan to be the most extreme example in the Michael Moore movie where very few guns matched very few homicides. But the most important point for gun control is what happens in countries with armed conflicts. All over the world most people are killed by small weapons. This could be prevented with gun control.
Guns were invented to kill. True, they can be used for hunting, but that is a very small proportion of guns sold today. Vegetarians may oppose guns for hunting, too. I am not saying they are right, I just think you should not call them Nazis. Nameme 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Please rethink." That's not trying to get me to change my opinion? You must be out of your mind. I'm done with this discussion as you seem to not want to do anything other than spout rhetoric with no factual basis or citation behind it. Let me spell this out for you clearly: Do not come back to my talk page again. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you not to attack others, I am not saying you have to change your opinion. As calling others Nazis is grossly offensive I will ask how to deal with this. Nameme 15:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While not encouraged, he is permitted to blank (not delete) whatever he wants. Just let his one go.Gator (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks[edit]

Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks, and I hope I put this at the right place. - Bobet 10:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ipod hacks[edit]

Hey there - sorry I didn't get back to you in time regarding this article's listing on AfD. I've been doing only very light Wikipedia-ing this week, to give me a bit of a mental break. But it looks like everything got worked out anyway, so that's good to see. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 14:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


United States military history[edit]

Hey! Since you appear to be one of the few active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Armed Forces, I thought you might be interested in the new United States military history task force of the Military history WikiProject!

If you have no objections, I'd like to merge the separate project (which doesn't seem to be very active, probably due to not being high-profile enough) into the task force; this would, in my opinion, help bring more interested editors to the scene by allowing us to consolidate recruiting efforts. —Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to help, and I'd accept the merge, but I'm really more interested in current or recent military doctrine, units, and organization, rather than historical. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all a problem, actually; despite its name, the Military history project seems to have wound up handling everything military-related (we're working on merging WikiProject Military into it as well, just to clean up loose ends). —Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser[edit]

Based on the technical evidence, it is quite possible that Nameme and Get-back-world-respect are the same editor. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this, I've posted a notice on [[WP:AN] here. You seem more knowledgable about this user's history than I, so please comment. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi?[edit]

Would you be so kind as to remove the substed "This user believes that anyone who supports gun control is a Nazi" box from your userpage? I could easily see it argued that this is a personal attack. Thanks! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to second the request. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, me too. Ben Aveling 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a pro-gun pro-NRA gun guy myself, please remove it. It really isn't appropriate here and I know it would offend me if it was the other way around so i need to do unto others here. Thanks in advance bro.Gator (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<AOL>Me too</AOL>. It's fine to have an opinion on something, not fine to apply offensive characterisations to those who disagree. Just zis Guy you know? 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fear we amy be piling on here and that won't help. Let's hold off and give the man time to respond. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


While I think you all are taking far too much offense, your consideration is noted. I do, however point you all to the fact that the Nazi's very strongly advocated gun control as a solution to their only real internal threat against revolution. For the record, that whole section of my userboxes came from a cut and paste of some other users boxes. I actually didn't know that the nazi thing was there until another user came on and told me about it, and tbh, I wasn't a fan of their attitude so I got defensive about keeping it. Anyway it's been removed. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man, I'm impressed with your attitude. I know that this kind of thing can be hard (I've been there). Well done.Gator (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, but:

The Resilient Barnstar
I award you the Resilient Barnstar for demonstrating grace and ultra coolness while "under fire" Gator (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of continuing this discussion, I'd like to thank both Theresa and Gator for allowing me the time since I went to bed last night until I had a break today to check wikipedia to handle this. Thank you for not jumping the gun and allowing me some time to fix it and explain myself. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing this without making a big fuss. We have too much of that. It's nice to see people who accede to reasonable requests without pitching a fit and/or ignoring the asker. A beer for you. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done. There have been enough wars lately. Just zis Guy you know? 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could point whoever you cut and pasted the userboxes from to this discussion and the one at the AN so that hopefully they will also decide to remove that particular usebox from their list? Cheers and thanks! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but I honestly can't remember who it was... Oh, and Theresa, if you're still watching this page, I'd like to point your attention towards Jayjg and Gator's posts regarding Nameme? I didn't mention anything about my suspicions on the AN discussion but a quick look at the user's contrib history and choice of wording in their "translation requests" was what tipped me off. ("military users dominating the article" etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'll hand this one off to you.[edit]

You were right.Gator (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries[edit]

Is there a way that I can view my own edit summary % through mathbot? Or do I have to file a RfA for that? I'm curious to know what my % of edit summary usage is.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here. There is a link to it from my bot's page also. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


boxy goodness[edit]

I've replied to your message. Since I promptly archived my talk page, I'm letting you know that my reply is at User talk:Adrian/Messages from Earth (and other archived stuff). Cheers!

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoreo30[edit]

I saw you warned him for his vandalism on the Florida State page, I thought you should know he has now vandalized the Tallahassee page twice now. AriGold 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support during my RfA! It has decided to postpone making me an administrator based upon recent consensus (or lack thereof). Thanks for the kind remarks and I hope to continue to see you arount the project. Cheers, ZsinjTalk 08:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


C4ISTAR[edit]

I think it may be time to change RSTA to force reconnaissance or similar, and have C4ISTAR become a disambig page. I've made a note on the talk page for same. I'd like your comments. ... aa:talk 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No!!!! No no no! RSTA and Force Reconnaissance are fundamentally NOT the same thing! No way! RSTA is both a unit type (as in A troop 3/124th RSTA) and a doctrine (as in, C4ISTAR is a RSTA tool). I haven't gotten around yet to adding the doctrine section, but PLEASE understand that they are fundamentally different. RSTA units are mounted cavalry units. They travel with armored support and are highly mobile. They also carry organic UAV and satellite surveillance support. Finally it is a US Army unit/doctrine. Force Recon is a USMC unit type, and they are special operations. They do not operate NEARLY the same way that RSTA does. As for C4ISTAR, I'll take a look at it, but I cannot support such a move.

A closer move would be LRRP or LRS and RSTA, but even then the two are significantly different enough. I'm not sure I can understand, why can't RSTA have it's own article? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not decreeing anything. I'm simply saying that "RSTA" is part of the acronym, (C4), I, S, T, A, R. The page C4ISTAR includes all the elements of the term "RSTA". Think of it like this:

C4ISTAR is an acronym used primarily by the US Department of Defense. Its individual elements include:

Common combinations include:

  • C4ISTAR
  • ISR
  • RSTA
  • C2ISR
  • C4ISR

C4ISR is also the name of a journal published by the DefenseNews Media Group. RSTA is also the name used to describe a particular type of military mission.

This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

The article RSTA should at the least be renamed something appropriate. We generally don't give articles to acronyms, but their expanded meaning. In this case, the following text:

'RSTA' is an acronym standing for "Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition", and refers to a type of unit in the United States Army.

is incorrect. The acronym refers to a type of activity, or a mission, not to a type of unit. So why not have an article that describes the type of activity referred to (RSTA, or ISTAR, or however you'd like to spell it), and has a proper name for the unit, rather than the acronym. Such a page could then be linked off the disambig page I describe above. That's really more in line with the style we're already using.

How would you approach the above? ... aa:talk 17:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me say I know you're not decreeing anything, and I thank you for discussing this with me.

Well, I partially agree with you, that it could be renamed. Bt I disagree with you, that RSTA is not a type of unit. In fact, RSTA IS a type of unit. I myself am a member of 3/124th RSTA. We used to be the 3/124th Infantry, now we are 3/124th RSTA. It's the name of a type of unit, just as a unit can be Armor, Infantry, Cavalry, etc., it can be RSTA. Now, by definition, RSTA units are technically considered Cavalry units for organizational purposes, but on a MTOE they are defined as RSTA. To continue my example, the 53rd Infantry Brigade (seperate) has 3 battalions: 1/124th Infantry, 2/124th Infantry, and 3/124th RSTA.

I think you are missing part of the point here. Yes RSTA is a doctrine like C4ISTAR. It can refer to certain technologies or procedures to gain intelligence on enemy targets. BUT. It also refers SPECIFICALLY to a specific type of unit who performs those operations: the RSTA squadron.


So here is what I propose: Two seperate pages: one RSTA (unit) and one RSTA (doctrine). The unit page would describe RSTA units, include the list, and talk about trainings, equipment, etc. It would prominently link to the doctrine page, which discusses the concept of RSTA as an intelligence gathering reconnaissance and surveillance method, RSTA equipment (at the strategic and operational level, could include C4ISTAR), and the more general use of the term.

One page for the actual RSTA units, one page for the idea of RSTA. Sound good?

(sign yer comments!)

Yeah, RSTA (unit) sounds like the ticket to me. I think RSTA should be a redir to the dab page, which should have a link to RSTA (unit). The "doctrine" elements of RSTA are covered at C4ISTAR. Although I agree the latter is not a terrific name, either. ... aa:talk 16:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Seals[edit]

You should follow your own rules!!!

  • You Please do not delete article talk space comments again. This is considered vandalism. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MARK_S."

(MARK S. 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

And? Where have I deleted article talk space comments (except for personal attacks)? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is your problem?

Believe me, I KNOW what i am talking about. So accept other oppinions, even when you don‘t like them and especially when you don‘t have any idea of the subject.....(MARK S. 23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Protect gun rights![edit]

Here is a userbox that isn't a "personal attack":

This user believes that gun control is Hitlerian.

-- Freemarket 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'd prefer not to invite more trouble. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua[edit]

Sorry but I don't think you know what is going on. If KillerChihuahua has something to say I am sure they are capable of speaking for themselves. Thanks Arniep 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have done, ad nauseum, as I am sure you have seen on my page. Stopped by to thank you for the kind words of support, Swat - if you want more data than on my talk page and Arniep's, check FeloniousMonk's page as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, actually having investigated KC's, FM's, and your talk pages, I think I'm pretty well up to date on it, thanks. And I wasn't speaking for Killer puppy, I was speaking for myself about her. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am not the guilty party here. KC responded in an aggressive manner when she disagreed with what I suggested about blatant vandal templates and then actively went to other peoples pages deliberately contradicting what I had suggested. She then tracked a conversation on my own page and joined up with a person who was opposing on an article issue and declared their intention to defeat me on it. Ironically she is now acting in an aggressive manner when she accused my use of the blatant vandal template of violating WP:BITE. Arniep 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


please don't bite the newbies[edit]

those removals look accidental to me. even when things get kind of heated, please try to assume good faith. and please don't refer to things as asinine (especially somebody else's comments, that's not very nice). i'm also curious why you tacked "community justice" onto your comments. calling people asinine and insinuating bad faith is pretty anti-wiki. WP:BITE ... aa:talk 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh? What are you talking about? I've been out of town since Friday. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

archive[edit]

may be a good time to archive your talk page, too. it's at ~100k now, and it's tough to navigate. if you need any help, let me know. ... aa:talk 04:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

I noticed your use of vandalism a few times tonight, including this diff. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Vandalism? I don't think the addition you reverted at lightsaber combat is actually vandalism. It looks to me like an editor experimenting with the software. This is why we have templates like {{test1}}. We don't automatically assume users are vandalising. By asserting that they are, we are not assuming good faith, and sometimes will aggravate a user who otherwise would not have started to vandalise. I'd suggest, actually, that you take a look at CSCWEM's contributions. That user is a vandalism-reverting-machine. However, his technique is wonderful. He is very careful only to assert vandalism in cases where the user is most definitely vandalising. (this is why we have {{bv}} of course)

In general, it is best to assume a user is experimenting, or is unfamiliar with our culture or guidelines. When in doubt, err on the side of the user. It just makes wikipedia a nicer place to edit. ... aa:talk 04:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about "tonight"....I've been out of town since friday morning. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig[edit]

On my browser, the arrow in your signature does not show. I think this is because you have the A capitalized. That is, rarr would work, rArr does not. NoSeptember talk 14:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Hmm. Works fine on mine. I'll look into it, but probably not till tomorrow. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kızıltepe[edit]

Hi there. You tagged this article for speedy deletion, with the reason "no content". While "no content" is a criterion for speedy deletion, the exact wording is "an article consisting only of a rewording of the title, template text, stub tag, external link, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article". Therefore, I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can add a {{prod}} tag if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexzero77[edit]

Hello, why did you delete my contribution on the Palm Beach, Florida page? It's not vandalism, it's the real truth.

You did not cite the source, and several of your contributions were nonsense POV statements. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swatjester/archive2&oldid=1140151391"