User talk:Big Bird/June 2008 - July 2008

Archiving checkuser cases
If you're going to archive checkuser cases, you need to remove the case transclusion from the RFCU page and add the results to the archive page. Thanks. Thatcher 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure I do that in the future. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Markku Peltola
You may not even remember this as it was a little while back, but in this edit you removed a Wikinews link. I think you may have done it by accident, but if not please be aware that Wikimedia sister projects reads "Wikipedia encourages links to sister projects... when possible. I'm sure you meant no harm, just thought Id mention it. Cheers, Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Yeah, I see that I did remove it but it must have been just a dumb mistake while adding the infobox.
 * Thanks for the heads up. Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, man. I thought so but as many people don't realise and try to wrongly apply WP:EL I thought I'd make sure. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Hey, just wanted to thank you for participating in my recent RFA. Yes, I will dabble in a little of everything...as soon as I get all this thank spam out! ;> (templated spam left below). also, your comments are welcome at my in-depth RFA analysis. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) templated rfa thank-spam 

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2. Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).
 * Thank you for your support

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Article to be deleted
HELP. Can you help me SAY KEEP in id.wiki, because this article to be deleted? Thanks. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I MADE U A ANSER BUT i EATED IT
O HAI delldot   talk  06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still not that great at the whole responding + archiving thing, but here's a diff for you. delldot   talk  16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) delldot   talk  18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "neutrality disputed" tag.
This marks the third time you've reverted the "neutrality disputed" tag from Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. As explained earlier, there is a dispute going on between you and I as to whether or not the article is neutral. You might not agree with me and I might the only one bringing this up right now, but we have not yet reached a consensus.

I'm not interested in an edit war with you so I'm not reverting it back, but I'd appreciate it if you put the tag back up yourself. You and I are both reasonable people who can settle this dispute without appealing to mediation or administrative intervention. I'd like to propose a truce: you put up the tag for three days, while I wait for more feedback at WP:V. By then, if there's still no one at WP:V who agrees with me, I will do the following:
 * 1) I will assume that the rough consensus is against me for whether or not we can rely on those two sources, and admit that we can keep them generally as is,
 * 2) I will take down the general POV tag on the top of the page, and
 * 3) I will stick to inline POV tags for whatever wording issues I disagree with.

We both want to make the article better, and I think the best way to go about this is by cooperating. --Explodicle (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From the way you've carried yourself so far in this discussion and from all of your writings, I gather nothing less than that you are reasonable and intelligent and, if I will be involved in a dispute, I would always prefer it to be with someone like you
 * However, I have an issue with what you're trying to do here and, in my opinion, it amounts to fishing. So far, you've claimed lack of verifibility, lack of reliable sources, lack of third party sources, non-neutrality and original research as reasons to either tag this article as problematic/disputed as well as, Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation, the other article in question. You started several discussions and asked for outside opinions, for which I do very much commend you, but none of them have returned any opinions that would suggest that either of these articles is suffering from any one of those above mentioned problems. In addition, there have been several instances where, not only did you clearly misinterpret policies and guidelines, but you also misconstrued the actual purpose of the article itself. Given all that, plus the fact that the two articles have been in steady development for some time (which would imply at least some sort of a standing consensus) as well as the fact that you are yet to find another editor who agrees with you that there are (not that there may be) problems with this article from any one of the standpoints you're taking, I would conclude that you are giving undue weight to your own opinion when you insist that these issues do exist.
 * Further to what you said earlier, you should be able to conclude that a rough consensus does exist against your viewpoint and, considering the age of the article and the second and third opinions you've been given compared to the length of your involvement and the lack of support for your view, the burden of proof is on you, not on the rest of the community that is discussing this with you. If you are the only person that disagrees with something in the article, you really need to show us why your viewpoint is significant enough the render the article disputed. You have yet to do that and, based on everything that transpired so far in this dispute, I strongly disagree that this article is problematic even though it could use some improvement but, then again, that can be said of every article in this project.
 * Anyways, I disagree with the tag being placed there because there isn't a clear purpose behind it that would bring about an improvement. I will keep discussing this with you and I welcome any outside opinions, even if they differ my own, but I don't quite understand the reason for possible administrative involvement. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My general concern (rules aside) is that the Watchtower/Awake are primarily focused on gaining converts and retaining members, and don't mind withholding the truth from "those who are not entitled to it" and deception if it helps "God's will". I can understand a few references here and there, but right now we're using potentially deceptive recruiting materials to write encyclopedia articles. I'm worried that if we use them nearly exclusively, our coverage will appear to be much more comprehensive than it really is. Ideally, I would prefer if it were more like the Deism article, where the majority of references are from non-Deists despite a wealth of primary sources in English.
 * However, I think you're right and the consensus is against me, and despite my best efforts I don't think that's going to change. It's a shame (well, to me at least) but I can at least assume the reader is intelligent enough to check out the controversies article on their own. I'm sure I can still make a few good edits to the subject that no one will disagree with. --Explodicle (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever our disagreements on this issue might be, I believe your acknowledgement of consensus confirms to me that you are a true gentleman. If there is something related to this subject with which I can assist you, I'd be more glad to do so. Just let me know.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuborg GreenFest‎
hi,

thnkas for helping out with formating this page. this is my first article so getting used to the formating buttons and therefore have a total beginners touch. i'd love some help to format the references. big thanks. Shibuyacat (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply is here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! thanks for all your help with my references etc. i think i understand how it works now

Shibuyacat (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply is here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Vandalism templates
Hi SWik78, I got your message:

''Hello!

I noticed that you have been placing vandalism warnings on some editors' talk pages after some edits that couldn't really be considered vandalism. Here are some examples:
 * this warning was placed on the editor's page in regards to this edit of his. That edit was constructive.''

Errr.....stating that a male is known by a female name appears to be vandalism and a violation of WP:BLP. Hence that tag. (Also, no reference for it, just adds to it.)

''* this warning with regards to this editor's edits on article Zude. He made no non-constructive edits there. ''

True - not sure how I managed that one, since I'm using a script to do that with, but that's wrong, and I'll erase that off his page promptly

'' Also, barring some other aggravating circumstance, 1 warning is usually enough for 1 non-constructive edit. You have placed several warnings on user's talk pages after they were already warned about that edit. Examples:, , , and others. ''

Err..... not user but userS, note the seperate IP's please. Also, each warning was for a different page / vandalism. I'm not trying to be a male anatomical part or anything, just explaining the templates. Like I said, the one on Zude's page was wrong, and I'll remove that.

Thanks! Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply is here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandals, Part II
SWik78,

Saw your second message:

You've been duplicating warnings and that's what I was trying to say. Check those links and you'll see what I'm talking about.''

Fair enough. Even with the script I'm using, I still have the ability to check the user's page for other warning first. So I'll do that.

'':Also, I'm afraid that this edit is not vandalism. It's not sourced, it may be a BLP violation but it's not vandalism even though this warning stated that it was. WP:VAND requires an edit to be made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which the above edit fails to prove to obviousness of such an intent. ''

I disagree there, however, I won't be disagreeable about it. If you decided to undo that edit, I'll leave it be. The edit in question didn't seem to be any good faith effort, instead, it appeared to be vandalistic (no ref, female name as a nickname for a guy) as BLP is more serious, I prefer not to use that term unless I can back it up with some kind of reference, do you follow ?

'':I'm not trying to be a dick either but your warnings were incorrectly placed and I was trying to nicely inform you of that. Please do be more careful in the future. ''

I hear you. Hey, looks like we're both trying to clean up the 'pedia together, I have no problem with that! :)  Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 18:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply is here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries
Don't worry about it, I do stuff like this all the time, just more often in the real world where it can't be undone so easy ;-P Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia article
Why are you trying to hide the nature of the Croatian conflict by ereasing the fact that Croats were the first to be ethnicly cleansed???

Migration(forced or unforced) has everithing to do with countries demographic picture... I'm putting it back,untill you find a better excuse to erase a historical fact.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit was out of context. You speak of Croats being cleansed from Krajina (which is true) and having to migrate to other parts of Croatia. If they stayed in Croatia, the population numbers or the population makeup is unchanged - the number of Croats living in Croatia is the same, they just live in a different part. That's why I removed your edit as out of context. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Demography of a country includes forced migrations troughout the country and outside of her.There were also Croats who went to Western Europe because their homes were destroyed.I am one of those people. Migration,emigration and imigration have evething to do with the demography of a country because the population is on the move and the previous areas don't look the same.And i still don't accept you selective objectivity on that article. If displaced Croats are not mentioned in the article,Serbs should also be ereased as well and we'll all pretend that the war never happened!??!?! I was just having a bad dream,right???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And how would you call those people who deliberatly provide unsourced info about some conspiracy theories that have no ground to stand on??? Arkan was a warcriminal,but some Serbian nationalists are desperate to make him look like a hero. I'm sure Adolf Hitler is innocent in their eyes too,just because the bastard killed himself before he could be brought to justice?!?!? Serbian nationalists don't care about the evidence and international trials brought up to convict killers and mass murderers as far as I'm conserned,their motive is pure hate.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of Serb nationalists.My apologies. But how can wiki articles be this inaccurate and bad???And how is bad editing so tolerated???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with people like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Babic

Just ook at his quotes section.

Quotes The whole Dubrovnik affair was a whole joke. My mom's brother was in that area as JNA reservist in 1991. Everybody was saying how Dubrovnik was being "completely destroyed" by JNA when in reality minimal damage was inflicted. Not to mention in response to Hyllu's post about Serb "tactics" the Croatian "tactic" of setting up Mortar positions behind schools and hospitals and heavy machineguns on the roof's of hotels where foreigners were staying to get the JNA gunners to target those positions and then bring the camera crews in to see what the evil Serbs were doing. Please. Everybody had blood on their hands. And those Ustasha-praise songs are just disgusting to let you know.

After i read that i provided a link in order to show him the distruction of Dubrovnik which you just ereased.There are few documentaries about Dubrovnik,but guys like user Mike Babic just aren't interested in truth.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Other thing that i've noticed is that you are constantly following me around(i don't mind that) and correct every minor mistake i make and all of my contributions are sourced and very true,but on the other hand you NEVER ,and i reperat never warn your fellow Serbs when they write utter noncence and unsourced info on any of the articles.So how can you claim to be objective and neutral?

User Cikic Dragan calles Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic patriots on my talk page,while they are wanted for numerous accounts of Genocide.Look at Slobodan Milosevic article for example.It's totaly apologetic while he was convicted in 2 cases against Milan Babic and Milan Martic.He died just before the end of tiral accused on 66 accounts of genocide but still Serb nationalists get space on wiki to spread their crap.That's just unacceptable to me.Almost every article about the croatian and Bosnian war has some kind of unsuppported rumour in it?!?! I mean... How long is this going to continue and when will Serbs(50% who still vote on Serbian Radical party) confront their past???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by soapboxing? 99% of my sources are international and accepted,I never use Croatian sources just to avoid the claim by Serb apologists of being POV just because it's Croatian. When i do get in an argumet,it's usually because of some unsourced and hateful language written about my people or anyother people if it's insaulting or untrue.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "Nothing but Trouble" moves
I have reverted all of them. Please read this conversation and you'll find out why. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be mistaking me for someone else because I haven't performed a single page move on any of the "Nothing but trouble" articles. All I did was to change the links on the disambiguation page so that the link matched the name of the article and, thereby, avoiding an unneccessary redirect. Any page moves that may have been made were done by someone else. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Meant to warn User:Koavf, who did indeed make the moves. You can remove my warning if desired. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
... for that ! :o) → Christian .И  13:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Anytime! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

...for reverting my user and talk pages, keep up the good work! --Badgernet (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection.
Done. · AndonicO Engage. 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:the non-huggle
Hi! I think I saw above you mentioned you edited a page to bypass a redirect (uh, I'm not being nosy!)? I don't think you're supposed to make an edit just to avoid a redirect (unless, obviously, it's a misspelling or something, or if it's in a navigation template) because it wastes more server resources than using the redirect does. I could be recalling incorrectly and/or misinterpreting what you said, I can try to find where I read that if you want though. Peace, delldot   talk  18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hello SWik78! How are you? I withdrew my nomination. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I will take care about the concerns raised by them and apply again after sometime. Thank you for supporting my RfA. You suggestion to add myself to WP:AOR was really good. If you have any suggestion, feel free to contact me. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 13:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert moves
Hey SWik, if you need to include possible search strings, why not just create pages like Tim Rusert as redirects? That way, the actual article doesn't have to be disturbed. Thanks. Glass Cobra  16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess if I would have thought about it, that would have made a lot more sense. Point taken.
 * Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And its so easy (i've also got a bug for creating such Rdrs), even if like me you consider every keystroke an opportunity to miskey:
 * If you or someone lk'd to the misspelled title, follow the rd-lk (in a new tab) to the no-such-article page, follow its rd-lk to the edit page for the misspelled title, and select the misspelled title by double-clicking on first word to highlight, and control-shift-RArrow-ing to highlight each additional word; then copy. Or, if it's typed without lk'g, copy that in the same fashion, paste it into the go/search box, in a new tab, to get to the no-such article page, and lk to the edit page.
 * If WP search doesn't bring up the correct spelling, and you have a shortcut for Google-searching a highlighted phrase (i think it's the Ffx Context-search add-on that gives me that, but Researchword probably will too), go back to the tab where you highlighted it, and see (in yet another tab) whether Google corrects the misspelling or turns up a hit with the correct spelling on the first pg; if so, copy it to clipboard in the same fashion.
 * In the edit window for the misspelled-title page: paste the bad or good spelling; correct the misspelling and casing as needed; Ctrl-A to select the whole title (but don't worry one way or the other abt trailing blanks), and copy.
 * Go back to the tab with the original misspelling for a moment and correct it.
 * Back in the misspelled-title-page tab, Tab gets you to the edit summary pane; a couple DArrows or a mouse-wheel scroll or a mouse click in the "elevator shaft" gets the edit-insertions box on screen; click on #REDIRECT .
 * That should shift the focus back to the edit window; when you Ctrl-A to reselect the whole new text, you'll be alerted by what gets selected, if it didn't. Copy the whole new text to clipboard.
 * Tab to the edit summary pane; type "new "; paste; hit enter to save.
 * (I don't think Rdrs need to be explained further: they work if someone misspells in the Go box, or in an external search; if someone needs more explanation of what Rdrs are for, they should read WP:RDR. --Jerzy•t 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello SWik78! Thank you for your message. Your suggestions were really good. They will help me. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've to think about the way I argue in AfDs. My !votes were Oppose Fails WP:N, Fails WP:BIO, etc. Many articles were really poor and I felt that it was unnecessary to present solid arguments at AfDs. However, solid arguments in AfDs are valued. You have given me some really good suggestions. Thanks again and please stay in touch! Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA
Thank you, SWik78, for your support !vote at my RFA. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
My RfA  Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was, , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.) It is possible I actually blushed a little when I read your support...perhaps not so mature of me but anyway I appreciate your very kind words. I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again! Frank |  talk  15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this
I suppose people can think what they want, and I appreciate your efforts to get the discussion back on track, but I have seen regulars templated quite regularly and therefore thought nothing wrong of it. Yes, I have been here for a while, but there are all sorts of aspects of Wikipedia that I am unfamiliar with or at least hazy on. Practically every day or every other day, I learn something new about how Wikipedia works. My editing efforts just generally do not focus on warning editors. So, were I to say I somehow knew better, I would be lying and I am not willing to lie. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, all I'm trying to say is that people, including yourself, are making too big of a deal out of your warning. It's so trivial compared to the bigger issue at hand (abuse of administrative powers) yet, since most people seem to have an opinion on it, it's an interesting point of debate and it's way too easy to get carried away and make it the focal point of the discussion. In all honesty, who gives a crap that you templated him. You explained your actions already, others expressed their opinions of your explanation, and that should be that! No need for others to rehash it nor for yourself to keep addressing the question. In the end, whatever your intentions were, you're not the one on trial. The thread seems to have lost sight of that and that's all I wanted to highlight.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough and definitely a reasonable response. --Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrator
I am a administrator just not on this site. That's Dr. Kazi to you!! ----- Objection! 9 July 2008



User:KoziKaz 9 July 2008) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!  —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Regarding this
Thanks very much, I'm getting a new keyboard tomorrow (I'm doing this by typing it with no spaces and them going back, copying a space, and pasting it) but I'm actually rather busy today, and it will be fine tomorrow so any small edits I want to make can be done like this. Thanks all the same! Harland1 (t/c) 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anytime. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment
I have now outlined my case for why I believe the article should be graded B on its discussion page. Your input would be appreciated (even if it disagrees with me!). Whitenoise123 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks
Thank you for supporting me at my RFA; it closed a short while ago as a success. I shall do my best to remain as cool-headed as you described me at the RFA, no matter what the ****s say about me (grin). Seriously though, your support means a great deal to me, and I look forward to working with you in the future. StephenBuxton (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary
Wow.. you're quick! You a recent changes patroller? Anyway, I'd just like to clarify that it wasn't meant as a personal attack, just a general comment on traits that I've noticed a lot lately, and I thought it would be a sufficient way to sum up the "cleanup" (probably would've been a better summary) that I've done. But honestly, if your writing is that terrible, you shouldn't be contributing. And that again, is not meant as a personal attack. Whether you're a redlink or anon with poor skills, you're the same to me :) --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you on the spelling and grammar mistakes; I can get equally frustrated sometimes. The only thing is that, even though I would never take offense to something like that, a newbie might mistake such an edit summary to be directed towards him and might possibly misconstrue it as bitey and get scared away from the project.
 * Anyways, thanks for responding.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:4DaHellOfIt
Hey...can you check out User:4DaHellOfIt? Seems fishy in a Brexx-ish way (check out the edits in I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time and compare them the ones you previously reverted for Brexx's sockpuppet). (I would do it but I don't know the process and considering his edits are vs. mine, that might seem a bit vindictive on my part.) The thing is, because it's actually formatted nicely, it might just be another fan, but the choice of FourFour and the Us Weekly scan is somewhat suspicious to me. Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, definitely not Brexx; the style of writing edit summaries is inconsistent. Brexx never capitalized letters at the beginning of a sentence and ended all of his sentences with multiple periods. In addition, Brexx's edit summaries are never very logical nor eloquent, they ususally consist of X exists so why can't Y exist too?. Here is an example of what I'm talking about.
 * I'll keep an eye on this new guy but I can almost guarantee it's not Brexx. If I get suspicious, I'll file an RFCU.
 * Thanks for the heads up!
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget...
...to WP:Template substitution the welcome templates you leave for people =). – xeno  ( talk ) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yeah, you'd think I'd have picked up on something so obvious by now. Thanks for the heads up!
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * heh, no problem - it gives my bot something to do =). – xeno  ( talk ) 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha! Thanks for that! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A note about page moves
Hi, SWik78. I came across the page Nascent, which you recently moved to Nascent (disambiguation). I wanted to remind you to always use the correct method of moving pages (i.e., the "move" button at the top of the page). The reason for this is that by performing a cut-and-paste move, the article is separated from the edit history. This is a problem, because the terms of the GDFL specifically require that each contributor be credited for his or her contributions. This is accomplished through the complete edit history of every page. In severing the two, the GDFL is essentially rendered void. I've merged the histories back together, so don't worry about this one. If you've moved other pages like this, please let me know so I can merge them as well. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply is here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. If you are in a situation where the target of the move needs to be deleted (i.e., if a redirect had been pointed to several different locations in the past), you can list the item at Requested moves in the "Uncontroversial proposals" section. There are usually several administrators (including me) who monitor that page and take care of uncontroversial moves as they are requested.
 * As far as I can tell from the merged history, the edit that James Chin made that initially created the current version of the disambiguation here was to the undisambiguated "Nascent" name, followed by re-pointing the redirect at Nascent (disambiguation) to Nascent, which had been redirected to Birth following the redirection of Nascent to that article as well. Generally speaking, the edit history should always be retained; because James was technically the creator of the dab, and I'm sure for licensing reasons, it needs to be reflected in the history. I hope that answers your questions. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't guarantee I can tell the difference between Nascent and Nascent (disambiguation) at this point in time but the dab existed in one of those pages before James recreated its duplicate in the other. I think that the diffs I left on your talk page should back up this sequence of events.
 * Either way, I thought that what I did was an overly simple and utterly uncontroversial redirect edit. I appreciate your patience in trying to explain this to me but I still fail to see the inappropriateness of what I did. I may have to brush up on my knowledge of licencing details but I guess what's adding to my confusion are dozens of AfDs closed as Redirect to X on a daily basis without histories being merged in such a fashion. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ohai
Long time no see. 'Sup? delldot  talk  02:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FIRST AMENDMENT == HOW CAN YOU GIVE PEOPLE THE RIGHTS TO PUBLISH ARTICLES ON BOOKS MOVIES OR WHATEVER AND THEN DELETE THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!! HOW ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO BE TEH NEXT BIG THING IF PEOPLE LIKE YOU ALOOW THIS TO HAPPEN. HOW CAN PEOPLE GET TO READ AND KNO OTHERS IF YOUR ALWAYS PUTTING DELETIONS == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaq1zaq1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone has a hate for batteries!
Volta, Dry Cell and Electrochemical Cell ... all being vandalized? Did their stock in Durcell suddenly take a plunge? Did their iPod run out of power in the middle of their favourite song? :) BMW <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive) 13:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: RfA
Thanks, I don't think anyone has ever called me that before, but it is you sir who is the gentleman.--  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Detectives move
Hi,

I saw you recently moved this page for a moment so that redirects would be created from the detectives. However, this means that pages like talk:the detectives now have an edit history, so if a reason comes up to actually use the detectives for anything other than a redirect non-admins can't do the move without intervention. Was there a reason you did the redirect this way instead of manually? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey!
 * Non-admins can most definitely do whatever they like with talk:the detectives by manually editing (click here) the talk page. I apologize if I've messed up something here but I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that pages cannot be moved over other pages with an edit history. There is no reason for talk:the detectives to be a redirect (as it isn't a search term), so it really shouldn't have been made into one. It's not a big deal in this case, but I think it causes less potential hassle if redirects are made manually rather than by moving pages over them and back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. As I said, I didn't see what the big deal was with this particular one but I do get your point about the potential hassle.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Laeta Kalogridis
No problem... I've seen her name too often, so I figured it was high time to do so. She's been involved with a lot of different projects in varying writing capacities. I've found three so far, and I'll continue expanding. I'll try to work in some interviews to establish notability better, too. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions so far? I covered her previous involvements with other films (X-Men back in 1995, wow) as well as a NYT article about her role as a peacemaker in the strike.  There could probably be a section about how the films she wrote for has been received (Pathfinder and Alexander weren't so acclaimed). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say the article has sufficient material to warrant deletion of the stub template. You've pretty much included everything that I was planning to add to the article before you beat me to it so there's nothing I can think of immediately that should be included. Give me until tomorrow, I'll see what else I can find.
 * Thanks for your work on this. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Partial-Birth Abortion Deletions "Neutrality Claims"
I would like to dispute the removal of these posts: Dr. Haskell's testimony was used to describe the procedure in Gonzales V. Carhart: "At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). "'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under the tip of his middle finger. "'[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. "'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into the hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.'" 550 U.S. 7 (2007), Opinion of the Court.

Another excerpt from Gonzales V. Carhart "Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26.5-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: "'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus.... "'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. "'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.... "'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.'"  550 U.S. 8 (2007), Opinion of the Court.

The Supreme Court reported several variations of the procedure used by different physicians. Excerpt from Gonzales V. Carhart: "Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." "Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull." "Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it." 550 U.S. 8 (2007), Opinion of the Court Excerpt.

Another testimony regarding the procedure from an Abortion Doctor before the Supreme Court: "Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus' skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has "some viability to it, some movement of limbs," according to this doctor, "[is] always a difficult situation." 550 U.S. 9 (2007).

THESE ARE THE FACTS.... IS THIS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA? OR NOT? I mean these are direct quotations from a supreme court case... I really think this is just showing the pro-choice bias of wikipedia or whoever is deleting my posts... you dont want people to know the truth about partial-birth abortion? You dont want them to know the true details of the procedure? This is eyewitness testimony before some of the highest courts in the land... not biased or opinionated information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuter1000 (talk • contribs)

Quinn
The reason for my addition was the fact that it called the Subject of the article, Kevin Quinn, a 'National Hero'. This is an outrage and i could not stand for it. thankyou for clearing that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.204.83 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)