User talk:Big Bird/August 2008 - December 2008

Re:List of Homer Simpson's jobs
I wasn't the one that performed the merge, but all of the sourced content was added, which isn't much. The Homer Simpson page is a GA, so it can't have a large, unsourced list like that. Originally we were going to have a small, imbedded list, but we decided against it since IPs usually expand them exponentially. Besides, just because a merge is agreed upon, it does not mean that most of the content has to go into a page. -- Scorpion0422 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Bleiburg troll
I suppose I had to try and reason with him, that and he's kind of amusing, in a hick sort of way... ;) I also thought if I showed him that the OKW reports are not something the guy that posted them invented, he may be a bit less "diligent" in removing them and eventually go away. Now that he's had someone to vent his frustration on he might even give up. And, yes, I am seriously considering Psychiatry as a choice for specialization... :P --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Review
I was just wondering if you could give me a quick review. Recently my RfA failed and I would like to know whether or not I'm doing everything I can to prevent that from happening again.

Thanks, --  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for July has been published.  August's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
SWik78, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

List of SpongaBob SquarePants characters
I wanted to stop the vandalism, like you, but it seems that you did it before me. What a mess in the history page! That user has been blocked second time already. Anyway, thank you giving me a heads up. I wish you luck in catching those nasty vandals :) Henkt (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!!
You told me off for shouting, I took your advice, I do not like capitals either. Out of curiosity, how did you discover my fault???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say I told you off but I notified you after seing your edits appear on the list of Special:RecentChanges. Your caps were very easy to pick out in the crowd :) SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you
, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse  for nominating me and  Wizardman  for co-nominating me. &mdash;  JGHowes talk  -  19 August 2008

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films 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) 01:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
--SmashvilleBONK! 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Help?
Hi, I'm new to the userbox idea, and have no idea how to completely work it. I was planning on joining 'wiki project Delaware' but it says to add the userbox that says 'this user is a member of wiki project Delaware' but when i tired to add it, it made my whole page into the box. everything that would show on my user page was in the box; so could you help me figure out how to add that box to my page without making my page into the box? SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply is here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the userboxes. one more thing for now til i get used to the changes...is the 'appropriate text' for a userbox just 'user' then 'Text' in the ' – '? SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. You're partially correct about the userbox format when adding it to your page. The appropriate code would be where NameOfUserbox is the name of an actual userbox created by someone. For a complete list of all userboxes and their appropriate names/codes, see Userboxes. Does that help? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that helps a little bit more than the tutorial and the cheat sheet did. I don't know if you could tell, but I'm not that good at formatting and technical editing. There is only one more thing I'd like to know. How do I make a table of contents? because I tried it, but it was all regular text and didn't have a box. It was just listed. On a side note, I hope I didn't cause you any trouble with the order of the message I sent you, because the 'present' message was before mine, and I didn't know how to format it to make it in order and not on the side of the page. Thank you for all your help. SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I can be of help and don't worry about the previous message with the picture of the cake, I took care of it. As far as a table of contents is concerned, it is created automatically when there are 4 or more sections in an article or a user page. You can override this by adding to the your user page and the table of contents will be displayed regardless of how many or how few sections you have. You can add it at the very top of the page or you can add it just below , depending on where you think it looks better. Let me know if you run into problems.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, in all honesty, I was no better at figuring out a lot of these these things when I first started editing so don't ever feel bad asking for help if you're stuck. I left the welcome notice on your talk page when you first opened your account because I like helping people so don't think you're bothering me. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for all your help. I'll definately ask if I have any other questions. So far I'm only getting started, but I car learn really fast via practical applications, so once I get used to the beginning points, I'll start to get to the finer points. Thanks again for your help. SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Also, you might want to click here and add your name to the list of participants of WikiProject Delaware to officially become a member of the project. Click on the link I provided and then copy and paste the following text directly below the block of text added by User:Ceyockey:


 * *SuzukaISichigo100%


 * It is optional if you want to add a comma and a short description of your intentions as a member of the WikiProject the way some of the other members have done. If you want, I can add your name for you.
 * Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing about userboxes... Is there a list of userboxes I can get without having to make them, because I just saw a user with well over 50, and most of them I would like to have, but dont know which ones are which when I went to the edit page screen so I could use them. Is this possible, or do I have to decipher which ones are which? SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Userboxes contains all of the existing userboxes available on Wikipedia. They are subdivided into sections of interest so you need to click on a section where you believe a userbox might be, find the userbox there, cut and paste the code to your page. Let me know if there's something in particular you're trying to find. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please you can translate in Bosnian and Serbian, the articles Martin Weinek and Kaspar Capparoni? I thank you in advance
Good evening to you from Campora San Giovanni. I write you regarding the articles on a very famous television series also in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia: Inspector Rex. The translations concern two principal actors of the new series: Martin Weinek or Vainech, are the veteran of the series both that Austrian that in that Italian. Capparoni is the new entry, but he works and he has worked in so many productions. I think that for the arrival in the winter thanks to Rai International they will also arrive in Bosnia, in Croatia and Serbia, naturally I will reciprocate the favor translating in Italian, Spaniard and Sicilian a biography or a geographical article to your liking, in fact in the Italian Wikipedia they are biographer and geographer. In attends him of one certain answer of yours I thank you in advance and I send you the regards from Campora San Giovanni, my village native. Thanks still--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message! Are you asking me if I could translate the above two articles onto the Bosnian and Serbian Wikipedia or are you asking me to improve the translations on the English Wikipedia by using the existing versions of the articles from the Bosnian and Serbian Wikipedias? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

TARGIT
TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrk (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your talk page has quite a few notices regarding the above mentioned company and its article. The main issue originally was that the article, as written by you, failed to assert any notability for the company. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, requires that the subjects of its articles are notable and companies are no exception (see Notability (organizations and companies)). You also violated the official Copyrights policy when you re-created the article by copying and pasting the text from http://www.targit.com/About_TARGIT/Company_Story.aspx. That is strictly forbidden because it may place Wikipedia into legal jeopardy; you should use your own words to describe subjects of your articles.
 * Finally, it is considered disruptive to Wikipedia if you continually re-create articles after you've been told that the article in question does not meet the official policies and guidelines. If you wish, you can read Your first article to get a basic idea about writing Wikipedia articles. And, when in doubt, don't hesitate to ask for help or ask for clarification. But do so before you recreate the article for the fifth time, not after. You can also go to Deletion review if you believe your article was wrongly deleted and discuss your case. Wikipedia as a project is driven by consensus which in turn is driven by discussion. This whole project could go haywire if we didn't have a basic set of rules based on community consensus. As far as your article is concerned, members of the community have expressed doubts that your article was on a subject that was not notable and that it was written in a tone that made the article appear more as an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Concerns like that are better discussed than ignored. You seemingly ignored them. That was the reason for my final warning.
 * I hope that answers your question. By all means, feel free to approach me if I can be of further help.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks! I have had my problems on your page. It is very hard to nagigate on! I changed the TARGIT article so were can i get clarification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.59.98 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my talk page is hard to navigate. I'll see what I can do about making it a bit clearer. What do you mean by clarification? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not only your talk page which is hard to nanigate on :-) You write:

"And, when in doubt, don't hesitate to ask for help or ask for clarification"

So where do I do this? Or do I have to upload the article again for you to see it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.59.98 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When I said to ask for help or clarification, it was within the context of the information I provided to you earlier about what makes an article suitable for Wikipedia. It means that if you find an article in a newspaper or a magazine that speaks of the accomplishments of the company in question, feel free to ask me whether the source (article) proves notability of the company and whether it can be considered a reliable source. At this point in time, especially because the article has been deleted several times, I would suggest that you go to Deletion review and ask for the article to be reviewed. That would probably be the best starting point for now. Also, please do take some time to read through some of the links I provided to you in my original response yesterday; those should probably answer most of your questions about why the article was deleted.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agian the your page is impossible to navigate on. The "Wikipedia:Deletion review" gives me nothing. Give me a e-mail or a link to the review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrk (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It tells me:

[edit] NAMESPACE of page:PAGENAME Invalid |ns=, please use one of the following: Article, Talk, Category, Category talk, User, User talk, Template, Template talk, Image, Image talk, Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, Portal, Portal talk, MediaWiki, MediaWiki talk.

UNDELETE_REASON Thomasrk (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Name: Thomasrk Article for review: Targit Reason: Got deleted for several reasons

I need a review of my article before I upload it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrk (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Radar (song), and Onceturn
Hi Thanks for the heads up, and the closure. I removed the AfD-Tag from the article. Cheers, Amalthea Talk 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, crap! I forgot to remove the AfD tag. Thanks for that.
 * And as far as Onceturn/Brexx is concerned, if you edit in the area of Mariah Carey, Rihanna and some other points of interest, you will run into him again. So far, we've uncovered 25-30 of his sockpuppets so I'm sure he's gonna keep going.
 * Thanks again!
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, turns out you were right. You're good. :) -- Amalthea Talk 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what, though? I wish I was wrong about him coming back over and over again. His presence in this project is not at all positive or constructive. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi SWik78. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Help again
I am once again in ddeen of your expertise. Is there a page that teaches you formatting for wiki, or formatting in general? I keep having to change my userboxes, because at first theyu were all listed on the side, but i saw someone with them in a table-style format, four across, about six or seven down, and I tried to do that also. I got it in the preview to look the same, but when i hit save page, it got stuck on the side of the page, in columns of 2, not 4. do you think you could guide me in the right direction? Thanks again SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again!
 * Help:Table should answer most of your questions about table formatting. Let me know if it doesn't.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Help
hello again,

I do not want the 2009 charlotte film to be deleted. so would you mind helping me improve the article?

Negabandit86 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * If you want this article kept, it is imperative that you find some reliable sources that explicitly state that the principal photography of the film has begun. Without that, the article fails WP:NFF, the notability criteria for future films. If you want to find some sources and you may need some time, you're allowed to remove the proposed deletion template from the article while you're searching for sources. Undoubtedly though, if the proposed deletion template is removed, someone will come along and nominate it for deletion through the deletion discussion (AfD) process. Once it does get nominated for AfD, without reliable sources proving that filming has begun, no one, including myself, will !vote to keep the article. Bottom line is this: without proof that filming has begun, the article will get deleted through one deletion process or another.
 * Try running a few Google searches about the film and see if you can find any articles that speak of the filming or production of this film. That's a good starting point.
 * Let me know how you make out.


 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh?
Sorry, but I'm puzzled about why you reverted my reversions of the edit by ClueBot, who was reverting my corrections of what seemed like vandalism. I hope it's just an honest mistake, because the Verbal page was really weird, and I doubt it's valid for a page to include a lot of crap. Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verbal&oldid=241676449. 124.107.146.20 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent archival
Hi,

Your recent archival of the Girl Get It case was a bit early. It's meant to go to the completed requests section, and then archived after three days :-) Don't worry about it, everyone makes mistakes! -- how do you turn this on  17:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the line in Requests for checkuser/Procedures that says requests are generally archived three days after the most recent checkuser response, you should note a few things. First of all, the procedural page is a guideline only, not a policy, and the word "generally" means to imply that the three day rule is not set in stone for any reason. Second, the sentence immediately following the above sentence states Depending on case load, this period may sometimes be adjusted slightly; this allows for slower archiving when checkusers are busy and for faster archiving in cases that are likely to re-occur. The case I archived is for a sockpuppeteer who is known for creating fresh sockpuppets within hours of the previous one being blocked (eg, User:CHECKORUP was created 6 hours after User:Sinceseems was blocked) so, therefore, there is good chance of me re-filing a brand new case against this sockpuppeteer before the three standard days of waiting are up. For this reason, I always archive Girl Get it's completed cases immediately after they're completed. It's not a mistake, it's a more efficient and effective way of dealing with this abusive editor.
 * Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
SWik78, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T♦C 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I'd just like to tag onto Thingg's thank you and add my thanks as well. Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Meet the Parents
I've left some recommendations at WikiProject Films/Peer review/Meet the Parents; just giving you the heads-up. Let me know if you're interested in some assistance with finding additional resources! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, A le_Jrb talk  20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My E-mail
Did you get the WP e-mail I sent you approx 1 week ago? Johnalexwood (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did but I just found it now; sorry for the delay. Anyways, check your email, I sent you a reply.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with vandalism
Hi Alex,

I have written some "dry facts" about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_Dee" a swedish artist. The facts are well referenced, they are neutral and they are to all purpose fullfilling the BLP rules to the best of my abilities.

Starting yesterday "ehausler" started to vandalise this page by deleteing this passage without any notes on why at all?

I was hoping that someone might notice the vandalism, but instead You jump on me??

Pls explain the situation, and what is expected of me?

Regds Nisken (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * Please don't think that I'm jumping on you and singling you out, that's not my intention. Wikipedia has an official policy with regards to editors making too many reversions of an article in a short period of time and you can read about this policy at WP:3RR. Among other things, it states the following: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." Yourself and have made at least 7 reverts to that article within the last 24 hours, well over the daily limit of 3 reverts as allowed by the above policy. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where articles are improved by discussion and consensus when there exists a disagreement. There are also other things that can be done in a situation like this and you can read about it at Dispute resolution. Edit warring is the least desireable approach to a content dispute because it can be very disruptive to readers as well as any other editors who may wish to work on the article.
 * I hope that explains the reason for the warning that I left for you but I also want you to know that I left an identical warning for Ehausler on his talk page.
 * Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns about this issue.
 * Thanks for responding!
 * Happy editing! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The paragraph sounds fine. The last two references (two of the main papers in Sweden) confirmes the main claims (convited to pay fines for domestic disturbance). Nsaa (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging anything content related, if that's what you're trying to explain to me. As stated earlier in this section, Nisken and Ehausler have both breached WP:3RR by making 7 reversions each today and several more yesterday, hence my warning to both of them. At this point, the issue is one of content dispute rather than any sort of vandalism. Future reversions by either one of them need to be discussed, regardless of who's right or wrong. Truth is not a good enough of an exuse for edit warring. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it a dispute when however asked to ehausler does not argue the content even with a single word, just deletes it over and over again?Nisken (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's vandalism to remove well sourced material. I've given Ehausler another warning, and if h* continue the user will probably be blocked. Thanks for giving them both a warning on the 3RR SWik78. Nsaa (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ´Thanks for helping - hopefully to make ehausler understand that free word is not the same as anarchy. Hopefully he starts to debate and argue instead of this? I´m not a fan of blocking peoples possibilities to give air to their views on the discussion pages. I feel confident that You guys take care of this matter. Learning more every day of the power of wiki, even with the backside of the coin visible.Nisken (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In and of itself, removing sourced material is not vandalism unless it was done in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and I'm not so sure that this situation qualifies. But I will say that I commend you, Nisken, for actually reading that warning and discussing the issue afterwards which is exactly what you should do and that's a trait of a good editor. Thank you both for discussing rather than edit warring.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I need to learn something then. I've always considered removal of well sourced material as vandalism as long as no rationale has been given (on the talk page or in the edit summary). Please explain so I don't do reverts I shouldn't do. Ehausler was blocked indef. by an admin after my report at WP:AIV. Nsaa (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is a personal judgement call to be made by an administrator once a report is filed to AIV and, in this case, they thought the disruption by Ehausler was enough to warrant a block, whether for vandalism or 3RR. I disagree with the indefinite block and I will bring that up with the blocking admin but Ehausler did not take my warning as well and as maturely as Nisken did. Anyways, thank you for following through with this all the way to the end. It's really appreciated.
 * As far as your question on what constitutes vandalism, the very first sentence of the official Wikipedia policy on WP:Vandalism states the following:
 * Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (notice the emphasis on "deliberate")
 * The policy then goes on to say this:
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
 * What that means is that no edit, regardless of how harmful it may be to Wikipedia, can be considered vandalism if the editor who made that edit believes that he is actually helping Wikipedia by doing what he did. Only if he intends to hurt Wikipedia can his edits be considered vandalism.
 * Further down in the policy page, there is a section titled What is not vandalism. This section gives a listing and examples of edits that can be harmful to Wikipedia but that can not be considered as vandalism. Some of those include "Failing to use edit summary" as well as "Stubbornness". So if we take everything into consideration and try to assume good faith as we're supposed to, here's what we have and what we can conclude from it:
 * Ehausler made this edit about two weeks ago that contained an edit summary that explained his actions and the reasons behind it. The edit summary indicates a clear desire to help the encyclopedia, even if he was misinformed or went about it the wrong way. Subequently, every single edit he made was a revert to the previous version of the article that he supported and he believed he was doing the right thing, possibly believing he was upholding the tenets of another very important policy, WP:BLP. However, he clearly breached 3RR and he failed to engage in discussion which were both disruptive to the article in question. But failing to leave an edit summary and being stubborn, all the while believing he was doing something that benefits Wikipedia, makes him clearly not guilty of vandalism. Don't get me wrong, his stubbornness and unwillingness to co-operate with others might be even more harmful than vandalism itself, but I'm just explaining why his actions cannot be considered vandalism.
 * Hopefully that makes sense. Let me know if it doesn't.
 * Thanks again! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thx with the help, just some clarification of what Alex might have missed in this specific case.
 * The link Alex gives to ehausler leaves the explanation that the edit is because: "He is innocent until proven guilty" - ALL but this first instance of removing the paragraph on the subjects arrest, trial and conviction, is AFTER the subject was convicted proven guilty by a court of law, as  several of the referencelinks states, "good faith" does not sound well therefore.


 * On top of that there can (should) be a debate (perhaps elsewhere?) on wheter the referenced fact that someone is arrested (not discussing gulit or even what someone is charged with) has to await the conviction before publishing. I argue that a public persons life, future and career, is so affected by the trauma of being arrested and tried that it in it self is reason to publish in his biography, for a better understanding of his future doings. Irrespectible of if he is later convicted or not. Of course a speedy note of his aquittal is needed in the case that is where the legal process ends. To make notes of any details of what the subject is arrested for I argue should wait until he is proven guilty. Wiki is not a tabloid paper nor should it overly stimulate to speculations of the reader.
 * Thank You again for Your timeNisken (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The link to Ehausler's edit was provided only to prove that Ehausler had good intentions, not that he was right. If he had good intentions, however damaging his edits might be, it doesn't techincally qualify as vandalism. That's all. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit worried about this interpretation. My first revert of what I consider vandalism (even after rereading WP:VAN). If you remove a section with valid references and don't give any reason, you're not acting in god faith (WP:BLP was even mentioned by Nisken in one of the previous reinsertions)? I'm worried because this interpretion it will be impossible fighting vandalism where people intentionaly removes sections in articles. Nsaa (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see why you're getting confused because I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been. If an editor (let's call him X) removes a portion of sourced text without discussion or an edit summary, you have to ask yourself this: does X believe that his edit will improve Wikipedia or does he believe it causes harm to Wikipedia? If you believe the preponderance of evidence suggests X believed his edit helps Wikipedia, then the edit (however harmful it may be) is not vandalism. If you believe the evidence suggests X deliberately tried to hurt Wikipedia, the edit is most definitely vandalism. Now, to a degree it's a matter of personal interpretation as to what X's intentions were so different editors/administrators will not always agree. But, to me, that's the basic process by which we would identify harmful edits as vandalism or disqualify them as such. Is this any clearer or no? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin?
Hi there,

I was wondering if you were at all interested in running for adminship at some point? Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * Thanks for asking but I think I'd rather get some more knowledge and experience before I'm given the ability to overrule and block those who have more of both. Stay tuned :)
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi SWik78! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BA notices
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I saw that - sometimes we have to post the links several times before they are read. Thanks again. --Ckatz chat spy  19:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How very true. I will not be extremely surprised if your links are also deleted with an edit summary liking you to some genocide denier gang or another so I just wanted you to have a heads up in case that did happen. Anyways, thanks for following up!
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tatars
Hey - sorry to decline your protection request at Tatars - the very recent history seems to have slowed a bit, so I thought it might be better to give it a bit of time. I know slow-motion edit-wars can be frustrating, so if you see it picking up again, just leave me a note and I'll handle it without going through WP:RFPP if you like. Happy editing. MastCell Talk 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I have nothing invested over there and I don't mind keeping an eye on it in case it does flare up again. But thank you for taking care of that backlog, it's always appreciated.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Block lengths
Those are for repeat problem users, and those are their IPs converted into block lengths. DS (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Addshore 2
You seem to have voted twice in the RfA, one under support and another under oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, thank you very much for notifying me of that. I simply forgot to strike out and remove my support !vote after changing to oppose.
 * Thanks again!
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for David_Krikorian
An editor has asked for a deletion review of David_Krikorian. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ryan8403 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adminship
Thank you for your message! At this time, I am not interested in adminship. I have always been one to edit articles, and so far, I do not feel the need to have tools. If I ever did pursue the tools, they would be applied mostly to WikiProject Films... not sure if some would regard that as too limited of a scope. Perhaps I will be interested if none of the WikiProject's coordinators are admins one day. Thank you again, though, for asking... your sentiments are greatly appreciated. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I sensed this kind of an answer from you. The hypothetical scope of your use of admin tools should not be a major factor in determining your fitness for the position; the trust of the community in having access to buttons without abusing them would be the main issue. In your case, the potential of intentional or unintentional misuse of tools is absolutely minimal and the community at large has -- for a while now -- expressed a desire to increase the corps of administrators whose primary activity on Wikipedia centers on building article content.


 * Content disputes, article protection, deletions and speedy deletions are usually better handled by administrators who have adequate knowledge and experience in article writing; an administrator whose primary occupation on the project is vandal fighting might not do be able to difuse an editing conflict well enough to encourage the conflicting parties to resume constructive editing, but you would. The administrators' areas of interest that I mentioned earlier all exist in large quantities within the scope of WikiProject Films and a knowledgeable and experienced editor in the role of an administrator would be a most welcome addition. I sincerely believe that having access to the administrative tools should not greatly interfere with your article building work. I also don't for a second think that the community would object to having an administrator who primarily values content development even after being granted the mop; on the contrary.


 * Still, I fully respect your opinion and will not try to change your mind if it's already made up. In case you were worried about your fitness for the position, I just wanted you to know that I'm completely confident that obstacles between yourself and the position of an administrator are minimal, you would be successful should you wish to run in an RfA. I truly hope that you mull this one over and decide that you're ready to take on this responsibility. But if you don't, please do know that I respect your decision to the utmost degree and that the offer is on the table anytime you change your mind.
 * Regards, SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Once upon a time, I had one of these "This user does not wish to be an administrator" userboxes on my user page. How times have changed!  I suppose I've warmed up to the possibility since then.  You have not been the first person to approach me about the adminship, and I think you are all wearing me down! ;)  I understand what you are saying about how having the tools is no big deal, yet at the same time, the admin title is negatively perceived by some editors.  I have ideas for improving WikiProject Films, and I want to work on better use of non-free images with better examples that others can follow.  I feel like I want to accomplish these goals as a non-admin.  Like I said, I am content with my current activities on Wikipedia.  I know that the tools will not interfere with my editing, but I am a pragmatist at heart.  I would be interested in the tools if my activities become more procedural (beyond a WikiProject scope), but in the meantime, I am happy where I am. :)  Don't consider this the end, though... we can revisit this in the near future.  Again, I appreciate your words.  Happy editing! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a perfectly reasonable answer and again --and I mean this in the most positive way possible-- very typical of what I would expect from you. You are a true gentleman and this project is lucky to have you.
 * I guess I'll just leave you alone for now, we both have work to do.
 * See you around!


 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mary Borden
I'm wondering why you deleted the input from the unregistered editor about the documents of Mary Borden. I've looked at the site and there is indeed a note that they are held. Also at http://www.racerealist.com/irving.htm there is a mention that her private diary is at Boston. Is it because it was submitted by an anonymous editor? Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * There was a thread at the WP:ANI about that editor's contributions which you can find archived here. Basically, his additions of "His/Her papers are currently housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University" was seen as not constructive due to the fact that he was unresponsive when asked to discuss the verifiability and/or significance of his additions and, even more so, when he kept doing so after being asked to stop. He was blocked on July 3 and then again on July 11 for disruptive editing.
 * My removal of his edits has nothing to do with him being anonymous. On the contrary, I think anonymous editors' contributions are extremely valuable to this project, sometimes more so than those of registered users. I rollbacked his contributions en masse as a part of a collaborative effort by several users who were involved in the affore-mentioned ANI discussion.
 * I hope that answers your question. Please let me know if it doesn't.


 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Bird
Since the user doesn't have any edits and was created in 2005, you can usurp the username. Follow the instructions in the link. It'll take a week, in the unlikely chance that the user comes back during this time and reclaims their username.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. I filed the request, I just wanted to get a 'crat's opinion on whether I should even bother with this or if I'm better off just trying to be a bit more imaginative and coming up with something different.
 * Anyways, thanks again.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: En dashes
I am sorry, usually I catch these things but I must have missed it. The script is somebody else's, I just use it. As I said, I usually catch those errors (the script allows the user to preview and nullify unwanted edits) but for some reason, I didn't catch this one. I will go slower in the future. Once again, I am very sorry about the inconvenience. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, man! Don't feel bad, certainly the last thing I wanted to do was to make you feel bad about anything. I just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you're running a brand new beta version script or something and you weren't aware of the issue.
 * Thanks for responding so quickly, though; I appreciate it. It does make me feel better knowing that there is some sort of a fail-safe built into the script and I think that alleviates a lot of my concerns. Keep up the good work!


 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't dwell on it :). The only reason I ran into the article was because I was verifying it for DYK. Looks good on that end. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that :)
 * Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)