User talk:Swarm/Archive 15

Adamstom.97
I honestly don't know whether this is more WP:OWN behaviour (which you placed him on notice about ... the last time I interacted with him, if I recall) or a complete inability to read sources and summarize what they actually say, but either way I think it might require your attention. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also (and I hate having to state this), I should note that I was on an "avoid conflict, only editing articles to which I am essentially the sole contributor, and especially avoid hot-button topic areas like Israel/Palestine and superhero movies (!?)" kick and only stopped by the article because a video-essayist I follow made a joke about the show being cancelled (relevant clip from 1:07 to 1:17) today. I've been avoiding Marvel/Netflix stuff for the last few months, since I got too busy half-way through season 2 of Luke Cage, forgot what happened in the first half, and haven't got the nerve to restart it. Just saying this because my showing up to the article at such a seemingly random timing might seem like I'm "looking for a fight", but honestly if it wasn't for real life keeping me away from the show itself this probably would have happened back in September. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is just absurd, and I'm sorry that it has been made your problem again Swarm. If you look at the page histories, you will see that Hijiri made two bold edits that multiple editors have objected to, but instead of discussing them at the talk page they have gone around accusing myself,, and of everything from simple edit-warring to WP:TAGTEAMING and harassment. I do believe that Hijiri has the best interest of the article at heart, so if they are willing to drop the nonsense and have a simple, civil discussion over at Talk:Iron Fist (season 2) while leaving all the other silly discussions behind us then I think that would be best. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If I make a "bold edit" (tagging one sentence that misrepesented its source and removing one other that was out of place) and two other users revert me with "just 'cause" rationales, I open a talk page discussion and am subsequently ignored on said talk page... ugh, there's so much misrepresentation in the above post. As for "harassment": Alex didn't revert or otherwise indicate that he opposed it on its "content"; he made the same harassing "You called me and my friends a cabal!" comment he's made every other time he and I have interacted -- including the first time he and I interacted. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dismissing our arguments is not going to get you anywhere, and I was going to respond to your talk page discussion (and tell you that I did not appreciate your tone and that I would wait for you to actually raise your concerns, which you still have not done on talk page) but then you went ahead and started all of this personal mess so I thought I'd better deal to this first, and ended up saying what I was going to say anyway. As for your concerns with Alex, I'm not going to fight that battle for you two but there is a reason why he keeps bringing that quote up and I can't say I blame him for it. Now, if you are done with this "woe be me!" show here and are ready to discuss the issue that you apparently cared so much about that you started all of this mess over, then why don't you go back to the appropriate talk page and tell us what the problem is (hint: telling us that information is not in the cited source is not going to work, because we can see that it is). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * why don't you go back to the appropriate talk page and tell us what the problem is I'm still waiting...
 * (hint: telling us that information is not in the cited source is not going to work, because we can see that it is) See, Swarm, this is why dealing with this editor is so difficult: a source can say, essentially, "Yeah, it's a cute name-drop, but it's probably not a serious tie-in", and he will summarize its contents as, then argue endlessly that "That's not what the source says" is not a valid reason for tagging (let alone removing) the content. The same thing happened at Agent Carter (season 2) in March 2016, the questionable content is still in that article today, and an attempt to address it about a year ago was met with this. Such personalizing of content disputes would be disruptive enough if the interpretation of content policy and reading of sources wasn't so poor to begin with.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have already said several times, I am waiting for you to present your argument. It is not up to me to defend my actions when I have already provided justification with my revert while you are the one insisting that this bold change should be made. Also, this is just silly and immature. If you were really concerned with having a civil, productive conversation about an issue then you would not have wasted all this time trying to come up with the perfect passive-aggressive section heading while accusing others of treating you poorly at their talk pages. And the fact that you keep saying things like "this article's owners are blankly reverting anything they don't like" is not helping either. We don't own anything, and we have not blankly reverted anything. If you cannot accept that your work will be reverted when others disagree with it, and that you might actually have to discuss such an issue in a civil manner, then I don't think Wikipedia is the place for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, I haven't really had a lot of time to devote here lately and I don't think I'm going to be able to investigate the merits of this content dispute the way I've investigated previous ones. Honestly though, both of your comments suggest to me that there is too much bad blood for bilateral discussion to be constructive. I suggest you focus on simplifying specific points of contention and then appealing them to uninvolved editors, via noticeboard, or RfC if necessary. Swarm  talk  07:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Concern
Hi,

I would draw your attention to this "Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Bludgeoning",read it please. As I see on and on new sections and bludgeonings are going on the talk pages rendered by the two newbie user (Cealicuca, Iovaniorgovan). An exprerienced user as well pinpointed how useless is to cirlce around something they did not understand a few months ago, as well now,. Things are complicated, already there are special editing rules & DS sanctions imposed by admins, things in the main page seems under control (after few blocks it had effect). But everyday I enter WP I see tons of "new" (but boring and already discussed) material with a huge amount in the talk pages, with the lack of/unwilling understanding how WP is working, and how not...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Hi


 * I see someone is trying to use some posts in a totally different section to justify another debate on the Talk page. The links that KIENGIR provided are from this debate and have nothing whatsoever with the section he is talking about. I would not insist on you wasting time to read through that, but if you were to go through it (not so exciting read, unfortunately) you'd see how there's reasons for that "bludgeoning". Just as relevant as the comments the same editor has, based on what he added. Now KIENGIR calls it bludgeoning, but those newbies have so far noticed the same things that other editors have mentioned too. And they are summarized here. Should that be relevant to you or not, I don't know. But reading some of the "argumentation" on the talk pages one could get a good idea about who's getting the end of the "bludgeoning" bat. Oh, and just for the sake of it, I can't say I admire any admin, really. But others do (I would be a shame it wouldn't go unnoticed...). Especially after me linking that on Delta's page.


 * Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cealicuca, you should not distract from the subject. In the article's talk page, there is a section about bludgeoning, not I was the one who opened it a referred the same thing Swarm already noticed and cared once. Your last sentence is again a distraction, there is not any problem if I notify other editors, especially if there are such a mess going on that it is hardly to see clear or interpret some things, etc. If you would know, WP is a transparent platform, so every edit should be done that it can be noticed by anyone any time, I have no problem with that and I have nothing to be ashamed of, on the contrary I am proudly take responsibility for every of my words (and yes, I reinforce, I admire every admin whom actions I've never noticed and error, and it will be like so in the future as well).
 * One more thing: "Especially after me linking that on Delta's page" -> Nope, I made my notification of the user page earlier you performed anything there (14:46).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I'll see what I can do. Swarm  talk  07:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of The Students' Union at UWE
Hi,

I would agree that the article as it stands does not meet wiki standards for balance etc, but it seems to me that there would be a lack of consistency to remove that article and keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bristol_Students%27_Union which has less 3rd party sources. I propose the article is downgraded to start class and all non notable content, such as the list of minor offices which is not encyclopedia content be removed PompeyTheGreat (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Philippine National Police
Wot merited the 30/500 ? I mean, why not throw a semi? &#x222F; WBG converse 10:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the target of an LTA socker, and I figured that it would be too easy for that type of user to get around a semi. Swarm  {talk}  10:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the notion that any article targeted by a LTA ought be ECP-ed and I see no immediate recent evidence of this LTA exploiting auto-confirmed-socks to target a particular article; he just moves on to a new target.
 * At any case, not much bothered, as to the current protection:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 13:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At any case, not much bothered, as to the current protection:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 13:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Echojoe1944
Hi – you blocked the above editor for vandalism because they were altering articles on a WP:IKNOWIT basis. They are now appealing the block on their talk page – I don't know if you would be the admin reviewing the block, but I tried to leave a clear and polite explanation on their talk page as to why they were wrong, complete with links that proved they were wrong... they simply removed my comment (which they are quite entitled to do, of course) and keep insisting that they are right, overlooking the evidence against them. Whoever the block reviewing admin is, I'd ask them to take a look at my deleted explanation in their talk page history, which hopefully should explain the problem to those unfamiliar with the subject. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Help please
Hello. You recently approved Rollback permissions for me so I can use Huggle. (thank you!) I installed and logged in. The "queue" that I was getting was mostly filled with low-quality, but good faith edits. I was wondering if there was some configuration I am missing, to make it show more vandalism? The recent changes page does a better job at filtering out good faith edits. (although it does occasionally show good faith edits) I looked over the manual, and all I could find was that I can change my source, which I did, and unfortunately that didn't help very much. I would really appreciate it if you could help me out, or point me in the right direction to get help. Thanks. CarelessWombatLet's Talk! 08:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but also I noticed Huggle has options to undo Good Faith edits in it as well. I was wondering if it treats those as vandalism, and uses the rollback function? Or does it simply "Undo"? Thank you. For now, I am going to be safe and open it in the web browser and click undo. CarelessWombatLet's Talk! 08:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The level of vandalism varies. Sometimes you’ll patrol with Huggle and you won’t come across any. If there’s vandalism happening, you’ll see it. And, yes, you can do many things with Huggle besides Rollback vandalism. Huggle does not actually use Rollback, it just imitates it when you revert vandalism. You can revert good faith edits which will have a relevant edit summary, and you can revert with manual edit summaries as well. Swarm  {talk}  15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Your answer is correct, and I have had a lot more luck changing my words from XMLRCS to Wiki. Happy editing. CarelessWombatLet's Talk! 08:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Abusive accounts
While searching the page move logs at the time I filed the AN request, I found the following disgusting abusive accounts:

Please block them...and hopefully someone will suppress this edit so there is no trace of this disgrace afterwards. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , these accounts have all been blocked for over an year (I was confused why you reported them at first and then I realized that the block log is redacted); and you should use email in these cases so as to not spread these usernames. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. It is very unsettling, however, that such names persist in the logs in the manner they do, with no indication of blocking... RGloucester  — ☎ 08:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've emailed oversight about it since I believe they can fix that issue about searching logs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , the name is now suppressed and shouldn't show up when searching in logs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of that...I tested it, and it has worked. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sara Ali Khan
Hi Swarm, I saw you had semi protected the redirect today as repeatedly re-created. I have now started article with copy editing unnecessary content from article history, the last consensus was 2 weeks old, hence stale and a lot has happened in the past fortnight, her film has now been released and the subject passes GNG by a wide margin now. I am posting here for letting you know this and also to make sure that my revert of the redirect is not in conflict with any rules. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The previous consensus was that the subject was not yet notable, so if it’s significant coverage in sources has emerged within two weeks, you can recreate it. However, if it’s still arguably a TOOSOON situation, I would recommend you discuss it first, because it’s just going to continue the existing dispute. Swarm  {talk}  14:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes looking at the page views and the recent coverage (independent of the film and her family) I believe the subject passes the GNG bar, apart from informing you here I also posted this thread on the article talk page, so far, the editors have mostly agreed with the new article, lets see how the discussion goes. Thanks a lot for the kind reply. regards -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has been created now after consensus on talk page. Is the protection necessary now, since it was put in place to prevent recreation? 2.51.186.251 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Tiepolo POTD
and Last night you two sarcastically urged on me the explanation that the mismatch between the title of this painting and its imagery is immaterial because it’s an allegory. That’s wrong.

Fundamental to allegory (and symbolism) is that it has to work within the relevant frame of reference. Simply designating something an allegory doesn’t mean that anything goes in terms of the imagery used, it still has to have the internal consistency required to convey the intended message.

If the Tiepolo painting in question is really intended as an allegory of the Immaculate Conception, it doesn’t work, given that the iconography is that of the Annunciation. However many sources say that there are Immaculate Conceptions that include the dove, the lily, the prayerful attitude, and so on, doesn’t alter the fact that two different things are being confused.

Whoever designated this painting an Immaculate Conception, whether that was Tiepolo, his school, or later critics, was confused. Calling the painting an allegory doesn’t alter that fact.

Don't bother telling me that the POTD isn't going anywhere because "sources say". I know. I'm merely enlightening you as to the real meaning of allegory and symbolism, as well as protesting the tone of the way you addressed me.

Awien (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As was already explained to you, Mary crushing the serpent with an apple is an allegorical representation of the Immaculate Conception. The serpent with the apple quite straightforwardly represents original sin, and Mary is depicted crushing it, which quite straightforwardly represents the freedom from original sin which, specifically, is what made her conception "immaculate". This is fairly standard imagery for depicting the Immaculate Conception, and you can easily find a multitude of other examples in art: Here, here, here, here, here. This is not even particularly nuanced symbolism, it's all really basic, and it was reasonably explained to you multiple times, yet you're refusing to listen to anything other than your own incorrect interpretation. So, sorry if you felt like I was harsh, but if you did any due diligence whatsoever, you could have easily figured this out for yourself. Swarm  {talk}  14:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And as I already explained to you, the dove representing the Holy Ghost belongs to the iconography of the Annunciation not the Immaculate Conception, as you would have found out if you had done any due diligence whatsoever. So Tiepolo has actually blended two different stories into one, and the allegory is in fact mixed up. I also conceded right away that designating the picture an Immaculate Conception wasn't Wikipedia's mistake, that it's Catholics themselves who confuse the two stories, a fact covered in WP's own article on the Immaculate Conception which, it notes, "is commonly confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus".
 * This is when you and Alanscottwalker butted in as if I didn't know what an allegory is, and (obtusely?) interpreted my comment on the different stories not being kept straight as meaning I wanted the representation to be literal, and sarcastically illustrated your point with an image of sperm and ovum meeting. As admins I imagine the pair of you were careful to refrain from overtly overstepping Wikipedia's bounds regarding civility, but you were definitely in breach of the spirit of civility we would like to prevail here.
 * That being said, I appreciate the fact that you at least responded to my post above. Awien (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:RANDY. Swarm  {talk}  06:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong
Hi. Would you be willing to reduce the protection on Sarah Jeong from extended confirmed to autoconfirmed? You didn't set that level, but in August you extended the existing protection out to February. It looks like the disruption from August has long since subsided. Thanks in advance. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the protection is not just a measure against short-term disruption, but a long-term arbitration enforcement measure for the protection of the article's subject. I do not remotely trust that the article is no longer a target for WP:BLP violations. A ton of people are still actively disparaging her on social media, and she's clearly still a reviled figure. The news spike, and the massive public interest in the article have long since died down, yes, but the outrage clearly hasn't. Frankly, I'm doubtful that things will have subsided even by February, and I suspect the page restriction will need to be implemented indefinitely, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Swarm  {talk}  15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year

 * Many thanks ! All the best to you as well! Swarm  {talk}  17:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Pldx1
Huh. After saving this edit I saw this, remembered you were involved in the incident last week that also involved Pldx1, and figured you were referring to his showing up the Tornheim canvassing discussion just to hound me. Then I saw the date and it turns out you issued that warning for something completely unrelated. Weird coincidence. Anyway, could you take a look at this and this, especially in light of the fact that I'm the one who opened a string of ANI threads about this editor back in 2016 (the last of which linked to the others in the lead), which was the last time he was this active? He seems to be hounding me as revenge -- for something that happened more than two years ago!

He doesn't appear to have ever actually contributed anything to the encyclopedia, and seems to be here only to harass and troll. I don't think anyone would fault you for just indeffing, but if you wanna run it by someone else that'd be cool too. I was gonna just wait to see if it continued after my IRL troubles cooled down, at which point I'd report him on ANI, but I didn't realize he'd been in trouble recently for something that didn't even have anything to do with me.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note also that the wording of his recent comment clearly indicates he was following me, not happening across a discussion on ANI. He specifically mentioned the water roux article (something I mentioned twice but was rather pointedly ignored by everyone else but Pldx1) and was talking about "atrocious" articles, a word only I had used up to that point. This is a really blatant case of hounding. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I'll look into it. Swarm  talk  10:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've left them a message reinforcing the request that they steer clear of you. Let's see what happens from here. Swarm  talk  20:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

More nonsense RFAR comments not dissimilar to the one you cautioned them for last month?


"transformation of a Wonderland's conflict"? "The Wikipedia Company"? "Being at risk when you are rich is not what you want to live with"?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted, but I ended up being INVOLVED in that case, so not much I can do as an admin. Swarm  {talk}  14:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Self-block
Can you please block my account for 6 months to 1 year? I already requested from Bishonen, but I am not sure when he will be on. Seraphim System ( talk ) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

One easily changed page move = PERM revoked. Multiple abuses of Rollback, nearly 1000 good faith edits reversed, misleading statements about it and obvious lack of a WP:CLUE = no worries. Why should anyone listen to the Admins who only protect their own? No disrespect to you as you have a clue, but your action here perfectly illustrates the double standard Swarm. Legacypac (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I really don't know the whole long story, but the Suleiman move and edit-war was particularly, unbelievably egregious, and any admin would have been within their rights to immediately withdraw the very exclusive page-mover right. And the fact that Seraphim System consequently CSDed all of their own articles out of sheer spite, not caring that they might be useful to readers, is further evidence that the user has a major attitude problem. I think Swarm did exactly the right thing. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I respect you and it brings me no joy to do something you disapprove of, nor did it bring me any joy whatsoever to do something that I knew would upset SS on a personal level. However, as far as I'm concerned, SS brought about the result herself by refusing to be accountable for a pretty significant "mistake". As I said, if she gave me any good reason to cut her some slack, I would have. Instead, she came across as being unwilling to be accountable, rather aggressively and unabashedly, I might add. Mistakes can be overlooked, absolutely, but this was a series of mistakes associated with the misuse of a higher-level permission. That sort of thing is serious, and while it's forgivable, it's not automatically forgivable. It can't be overlooked if the user won't take accountability and improvement seriously in this sort of situation. It's not about punishing a mistake, but her attitude towards what was a pretty serious mistake caused a loss of confidence in her trustworthiness. Regarding the double standard you point out, I agree, the degree of abuse and lack of accountability in that case is astounding, way worse in general, and because it's coming from a sysop, and I think that admin should be brought to Arbcom and desysopped, and I would recommend that if it goes there. It's insane that users are defending such brazen misconduct. In context, the SS situation makes the GS situation seem all the more unreasonable, but I don't think holding SS accountable in this way was in itself unreasonable. Swarm  {talk}  02:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly worried about the SS Perm, though I would not have removed it. The double standard is more stark. Legacypac (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Compared to Floquenbeam, I think you handled this very badly. He solved the problem, you just got a bunch of people to dump on someone who was already angry. Maybe think about solving problems instead of exacerbating them next time. 206.248.156.150 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? Swarm  {talk}  02:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is much better than this. The former wastes less of people's time and is, frankly, less dick-ish. Aren't admins supposed to try to resolve issues themselves before going to ANI and writing about an editor's "rage quit" and "lack of malice per se"? 206.248.156.150 (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s longstanding principle that if you’re going to leave, you should do so quietly and without drama. Feel free to describe it however you want if you think “rage quit” is too aggressive, but asking for a mass deletion of articles when you’re already off the rails is not something I’m going to spend a lot of time humoring, “good faith” or not. The only reason I’m even involved with that user is because they abused a special privilege I granted them a while back, and then asked me to block them when I pulled it. That doesn’t make me responsible for facilitating their request to nuke a hundred Wikipedia articles, and frankly, my only intention was to shut that request down. Swarm  {talk}  06:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you understand my point. Floquenbeam asking the user to withdraw their request was much more effective than your report to AN:I (more effective at getting them to reverse their deletion requests, which you say was your intention). Do you disagree? 206.248.156.150 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam only asked her because of the notice at AN, so the notice was effective. She was already mad at Swarm for withdrawing the pagemover right he had given her, just like she was mad at TonyBallioni (who she also asked to six-month block her) for reverting her Suleiman move. Do you think she would have listened to people she was already mad at? No. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We certainly don't know that she wouldn't have listened because the first thing Swarm did in response to the requested deletions was run to AN/I. And it is pretty much universally acknowledged that running to AN/I as a first step to sorting out an issue rather than talking to the user is not ideal. Especially as an admin. Do you not talk to people about problems you are having with them because they are mad at you? I think it's a fairly standard part of adulting. 206.248.156.150 (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He didn't "run to ANI", he took the matter to the Administrators Noticeboard, a completely different venue, to ask for help or intervention from fellow administrators. It's pretty clear you are only here to stir shit, so bye-bye. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? How am I stirring shit? I just think he should at least try to talk to users like Floquenbeam did instead of reporting them! It's a suggestion and I wouldn't have thought it was a shit stirring one either?! 206.248.156.150 (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The user didn’t have a “problem” that needed to be discussed, they asked me to delete over a hundred Wikipedia articles that they created. I don’t care about discussing their motivations, I care about putting that to the community so it can be declined, because it’s not a reasonable request. If Floq wants to discuss it with them further because he thinks it’s a reasonable thing to ask, that’s his prerogative, but he’s not remotely on the same page as me. Swarm  {talk}  06:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm really surprised about how this discussion is gone and I think maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. This is the sequence of events that I saw:
 * 1. User gets upset and requests deletion of all the content they wrote.
 * 2. You take the issue to AN.
 * 3. A bunch of people talk about it a lot.
 * 4. Floq goes to the user and says (paraphrase), "Hey, do you mind if we don't delete your content?"
 * 5. User says (paraphrase), "I'm still pissed, but okay, I withdraw my request for deletion."
 * 6. AN thread ends because there isn't an issue anymore.
 * So, if your aim was to "put it to the community so it could be declined," then yes, what Floq did wouldn't do that - the user withdrawing their request wouldn't decline their request. But if the aim was to not delete the articles, then the way he did it wasted lots less time and was nicer (and, frankly, I thought it was best practice to ask the user to solve the problem before taking it to a noticeboard). My tone was snarky, but I'm kind of shocked at the push-back I'm getting regarding the content of my posting. 206.248.156.150 (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry if this is getting a bit too aggressive, I'm not trying to come across as obstinate, and I do appreciate you taking the time to give me feedback on how I could have better handled things. I do hear what you're saying. It's not unreasonable. If I thought that it was likely that SS would have retracted their request if I simply asked nicely, of course I would have. I didn't, and still don't think it was likely, given the fact that SS was quitting the project over something I did to them. Also, at the time, they did not seem to be open to reasonable communication. SS was, in my assessment, being unreasonable in response to criticism before this issue even came up, to the degree that I revoked their Page Mover permission. When they asked for a self-block and the mass deletion of their articles in response to this, I felt like they were becoming completely unhinged, throwing a tantrum, having a meltdown, crashing out, rage quitting, whatever you want to call it. Maybe I was wrong, but that was my perception. I felt like attempting reasonable discussion would have been a waste of time in this context. On top of that, I felt like the request was a direct attempt to harm the project (intentional or not), and I didn't really care to give it the time of day. Should I have tried it anyway? Sure. I will grant you, I could have tried, rather than jumping to the conclusion that it wouldn't be possible and going straight to AN. Maybe it would have been resolved more easily, who knows. I hope you can at least understand my thought process; my intention was not to beat up on an already-down user, but I quite simply saw AN as the only option. I don't think the exchange with Floq demonstrates that this user would have actually been responsive to such an attempt. Reading the exchange, SS seemed to have been influenced by Floq's supporting them at AN and then offering the voluntary compromise resolution as a way out of the AN gauntlet, in conjunction with the pushback they received over the "good faith" clause, which they were not aware of. I don't really believe that just asking nicely at the beginning, after everything that had happened up to that point, would have had the same decisive result that Floq ostensibly achieved after the attempt was exposed to the community, to much excoriation. But, your point is taken, patience is a virtue, and I could have tried talking to the user before assuming the worst and going straight to AN. As an aside, if you don't mind me asking, why don't you have an account? Swarm  {talk}  15:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that very thorough response. I was definitely more snarky than called for too. Not ignoring your question re: account, but away from my computer till tomorrow and hate typing on my phone. 209.171.88.216 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the whole situation got very pissy quite quickly - admittedly mostly due to the OP, but no one else helped much either until Floq. (I'm not counting myself out of that statement either, though my contribution here was way after the fact.) But your explanation is reasonable and I do see where you are coming from. Just one of those cases where it wouldn't hurt for everyone all along the line to take a few deep breaths before saving.
 * I don't have an account because I just don't edit enough. I read Wikipedia (the noticeboards and RFAR and some user's contributions like NYB and Iridescent and Bishonen) as a hobby (probably because I don't read Reddit) and have for a kind of ridiculously long time now (I'm not sure, like 10 years or more?) But I can't imagine I have more than 150 edits total over that time. And most of them were probably adding sources to Canadian Politican BLPs in the early days of when it started being policy to delete unsourced BLPs and a month or so hanging out at the fiction AFDs.
 * And because I don't edit, it's annoying to get things to show up right. It took me like 6 previews to get those links I made above to work and look correct. Anyways, take care and maybe one day I'll actually find a niche to fill in the Wikiworld other than rubbernecker. Take care and all the best, 206.248.156.150 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * Thanks ! Merry Christmas! Swarm  {talk}  21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
Swarm, just wanted to thank you for restoring my previous permissions. I know it's part of your job, but thank you nonetheless. And nice to see a familiar face. So to speak. Hope you're well. Quintus Symmachus (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Welcome back! Swarm  {talk}  21:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

 * Thanks! All the best! Swarm  {talk}  19:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Thanks ! Same to you! Swarm  {talk}  19:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

 * Many thanks! Swarm  {talk}  19:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings !
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Swarm: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


 * Many thanks, ! Same to you, all the best! Swarm  {talk}  19:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Swarm: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, The SandDoctor  Talk 07:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


 * Many thanks,, same to you! You're awesome! Swarm  {talk}  19:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thank you! -- The SandDoctor  Talk 22:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Help
Hi Swarm! Draft:Prakash Neupane has been resubmitted for the review. I think draft is well referenced and all the citations are reliable. The only problem is that most of the citations are in Nepali language. Please review the draft and accept if it meets the criteria. Thanks -- Binod Basnet  (talk)  11:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Swarm  {talk}  19:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Swarm -- Binod Basnet  (talk)  23:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail
Times 2 The SandDoctor  Talk 22:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied. Swarm  {talk}  06:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied ;) -- The SandDoctor Talk 08:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * x2 -- The SandDoctor Talk 21:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting removal of “Confirmed” bit on alt
Greetings, My alt is passing the autoconfirmed threshold for editing, and now no longer needs the confirmed flag. Please remove the confirmed bit from my alt, the user shown here. I would like to thank you for fixing this, I appreciate it a large amount, as well as your huge dedication to the project. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 09:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC) exactly at 09:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Was assigned confirmed and extended confirmed by Beeblebrox and then confirmed was removed by Xaosflux once autoconfirmed. -- The SandDoctor Talk 21:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Already done by Xaosflux a few days ago. Funny signature though! Regards, Swarm  {talk}  22:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pramod Kharel 2
Hi Swarm! I have submitted the draft for review. All the citations are reliable. Please review the draft. Thanks so much. -- Binod Basnet  (talk)  11:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Republic of China (1912–1949) requires semi-protection
Hi Swarm. I noticed there were unusual ip edits going on starting on the 23/12/2018 on Republic of China (1912–1949). Ips changing the wp:stable lead section. Realised protection expired on page on 22/12/2018. Was wondering if you could take a look and see if its a issue or requires a silver padlock? Many thanks. -- Takamaxa ( Talk ) 12:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like handled it already.  Swarm  {talk}  19:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC close
I'm wondering if something you did in closing the Tyson RfC broke something; see Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. I can't quite figure out what exactly is causing this to break, and I'm not sure if I should just remove it, or if that will screw Legobot up even more. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk:Neil DeGrasse Tyson
 * Weird, thanks for letting me know. It appears that a bot copies the comment under an RfC tag, which is usually the RfC question itself, and transcribes it to that page. When I closed the section but kept the RfC tag posted, the bot immediately detected the change and tried to copy the closure, thinking it was an update to the RfC question itself. I placed a generic RfC question under the tag and manually updated the centralized page, so hopefully the next time the bot runs it will operate normally. I'll watchlist the page to make sure. Good catch! Swarm  {talk}  19:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes, yeah, I had no idea what was going on. Just wanted to let someone know that could probably fix it better.  Thanks! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you considering evaluating if there is a consensus on the text proposal section? ResultingConstant (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. Swarm  {talk}  21:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This is getting heated again, just a ping to see if you could take a look as there is dispute among the involved parties on the state of consensus. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you know what, I saw the first proposal had been closed and I thought someone had already taken care of it. I didn't realize that subsequent section was still in need of closure! Sorry about that, my mistake. I'll take a look at some point tonight and see if I can figure out the consensus. Regards, Swarm  {talk}  23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, ! Added to the treasury with pride! :) I'm happy to help out at RfPP and only wish I had more time to help with the never-ending demand there. Thanks for the warm wishes, my holidays have been great so far and I very much hope the same can be said for yours. Happy new year. :) Best regards, Swarm  {talk}  01:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Pharmstd2018
I'm rather relieved to see you've given this editor a warning block for bad editing, but I'm a bit confused why it's indefinite. I'm unable to spot why their username breaches our username policy, nor can I see why they're 'not here'. I do see a misguided, enthusiastic (uni student?) with a modicum of quite detailed knowledge, trying to get it on the encyclopedia, and messing it up quite badly. But I think their intentions may be genuine, and they don't seem to have had enough warnings to trigger a permanent block.

I'm probably missing something obvious - so should you have a moment, could I ask you just to clarify your reasoning for me? Many thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The username appears to represent a corporation, Pharmstandard. This, by extention, implies that they're not editing without an agenda, and are likely a UPE, thus a simple username soft block is not appropriate. In addition, they've never made any attempt to communicate, which alone is indef-blockable, particularly after the history of warnings on their talk page. Sorry, I should have been more thorough in the block log. Swarm  {talk}  01:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that. Weirdly, my gut reaction was to conclude that they were a Pharmacy STuDent from this year's university intake, possibly from a Middle East or Asian background (but don't ask me why there, apart from the source of some of their citations). Can't help thinking the block was a bit harsh, although competency was clearly lacking. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if they're willing to communicate, which is a baseline requirement for contributing here, and they communicate that they are here to contribute in good faith and that the interpretation of their username was unintended, I will go of course unblock them. It may just be a misunderstanding. I'll leave them a followup message. Swarm  {talk}  02:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

 * Thanks ! Much appreciated! Merry Christmas, happy New Year, and all the best to you as well. Thanks for all you do around here. Swarm  {talk}  19:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Swarm, So sorry only just seen this, Thanks so much!, Thanks and thank you for everything you do around here it's greatly appreciated, I know in the past we'be probably not seen eye-to-eye but I still appreciate everything you do and have done here :), I wish you and yours a very Happy and Healthy New Year, Take care, – Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 15:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
The SandDoctor Talk 07:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied -- The SandDoctor Talk 10:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Mathew L. Golsteyn
Geo Swan was less than honest when he requested semi-protection on Mathew L. Golsteyn. I stubbed it for BLP reasons. GS complained to an admin User:Nick-D who agreed with it being stubbed. He then shopped it to BLPN where it is still under discussion with a number of editors agreeing it is a BLP1E issue. I participated in that discussion. It is inappropriate to use semi-protection to prevent my participation and allow GS to continue this course while consensus is being formed. A more appropriate course would be to stub it and fully protect while this is worked out. It's a BLP violation as it stands now. User:Masem has also weighed in on BLPN with no one complaining that my stubbing the article or that IP edits were improper. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a request to explain administrative action you took per WP:ADMINACCOUNTABILTY. You've taken administrative action since this request and your actions have deprived me of the ability to edit the above article (I've made two edits over a week so hardly disruptive and GS used false and misleading arguments to get you to side on the wrong end of BLP policy - go read the deletion discussion and BLPN noticeboard for reasons why). Please undo the completely unnecessary PP you creted. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have an edit notice explaining that I'm busy and that I will respond to messages as soon as I am able. I have a large backlog of messages and requests apart from yours. So, regarding the article, BLP1E is an inclusion criterion for having an article on a subject. If it doesn't satisfy 1E, it should be deleted. That's a matter for the AfD discussion. There's no application of BLP1E towards your unilateral blanking. Now, Nick-D did attempt to argue that the blanking was appropriate for removing "contentious unsourced content", but when asked rather straightforwardly, he was unable to give any specifics on what he was referring to. If there are any unsourced claims in the article, they can be removed, on an individual basis, and you may file an edit request on the talk page. However, BLP is not some magic buzzword that gives you a free pass to blank any and all negative information, and that's what you were doing, and that's why the page was protected. Swarm  {talk}  13:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a bit surprised that you're criticising me without even the courtesy of a ping, much less a discussion. I did in fact explain my concerns on my talk page and at WP:BLPN  - the article contained negative claims about this person not covered by a reference. These shortcomings were very obvious, and didn't need further explanation - especially as Geo Swan has a long history of similar articles with similar BLP problems, and is well aware of the need to reference everything. As is standard practice, I also didn't want to highlight the text in question as repeating it would itself be a BLP violation. I'd encourage you to email editors (and especially other admins) to discuss issues like this if you think concerns are unclear - as an admin I take BLP seriously and and am happy to discuss issues around enforcing it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

An IP took you to ANi onthisissueLegacypac (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, replied there.  Swarm  {talk}  23:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Swarm!


Happy New Year! Swarm, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Hhkohh (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks, same to you! Swarm  {talk}  03:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Happy New Year! Swarm, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

The SandDoctor Talk 02:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks ! Replied to your email btw! Swarm  {talk}  03:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome & I saw it. I'm just about to adjourn for dinner as it were, but I will reply later this evening. Thanks, -- The SandDoctor Talk 03:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please unlock the 2019 typhoon season article immediately
A tropical storm may be form within one hour and all editors cannot revise the article at all.-- 🐱💬 06:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Orangemike
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BorgQueen •  Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Addshore



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD:
 * G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is db-disambig; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
 * R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion).  This is db-redircom; the text is unchanged.
 * G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use db-blankdraft.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
 * Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news
 * Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length . All accounts must have a password:
 * At least 8 characters in length
 * Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the [//github.com/wikimedia/password-blacklist Password Blacklist library])
 * Different from their username
 * User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
 * Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
 * Copyvio-revdel now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration
 * Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
 * Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Replied. Swarm  {talk}  21:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Judit Hidasi again
Dear Swarm, First I wish You Happy New Year! And I wold like to ask you tp check Judit Hidasi article. You said I might creat it again but I had to make you do permission for it and maybe it is suitable for the WP criteria. I am presenting the article for you, and I hope you will support the rewriting the article. Thank íou for your kind attention.Borgatya (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal
Thank you for blocking. Would you please consider blocking the /64, as another instance was recently doing the same thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * blocked for one year, as it has been blocked several times this year already. Good catch, thanks for letting me know. Swarm  {talk}  01:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Lip Sync Battle Shorties
Hi, Swarm! First, I'm not here to ask you to overturn your decision if that's what you feel is best, I'm just here to explain. We've had issues with this editor before, making edits that go against the MOS and other things. For this article in particular, I had actually missed that one of the sources—Zap2it—did indeed have two January episodes listed, which kindly restored; however, the rest of their edit was unsourced and was challenged, so they are required to discuss per WP:BRD. Again, this isn't the first time. There was an alleged last-minute scheduling change with a series back in October, which did turn out to be true, but at the time, the sources were still listing the original date. The editor was insistent on changing the date to the new date based on something they read from an unreliable gossip-y website and got into it with us, when, again, the reliable sources still had the original air date listed. As expected, the reliable sources eventually updated, and that's all the editor had to wait for, but they refused because of their "I am right" mentality. On a side note, may I just say that I am impressed in general by how quickly you were on that as I didn't see anything at RFPP for the article. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. I couldn't, and still can't, gauge whether or not IJBall's edit would have been the end of the edit war, which I came across patrolling AIV. The user had reported you there (they were issued a warning for that). If you want me to unprotect the article, I will. You are, of course, correct that contested unsourced information cannot be re-added without a source. Either way, let me know if you have any more trouble with this user, I'd be happy to step in if needed. Regards, Swarm  {talk}  01:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Swarm – I'd wait for 'em hit the Talk page first, before unprotecting. The "episode titling" issue is really not clear-cut, so there should be a discussion about that to see if a consensus can be formed. As to whether the first episode should be called a "Special" or a "Pilot"... well, I have my own opinion on that, which I'll share at the Talk page once a discussion is started... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's not a problem, I would like to step in here and give my side of the story here as well. First, I want to make it clear that I am here and editing to help and update things, not here to start any wars/problems with anyone. That being said, Amaury has constantly been causing problems to me. He mentions about the last-minute scheduling change to Nickelodeon in October, and that I was basing it on an, "unreliable gossip-y website" This 'website' happens to be Nickandmore on Twitter. He gets his own special access to the Nickelodeon schedules, so when he gives this information, it is completely reliable, not unreliable and/or gossip-y. With that out of the way, I would like to comment on his behavior as well. While I am attempting to update things here, he has decided to block me on Twitter because he does not like me for trying to help. Yes, Twitter is a different site from Wikipedia, so that doesn't really matter entirely, but it shows that he clearly does not care about who I am or what I do at all. Now, he straight down undos whatever I add onto article to update them, claiming them to be 'disruptive'. He clearly does not care at all to even check the sources before reverting my edits. As seen on Zap2it the upcoming episodes for January 2019 are currently listed there, but he did not care to check the site, he only saw that I contributed it and automatically claimed it to be disruptive editing. Again, just making sure you know that this is not trying to continue a hate war or anything, I am trying to give my side of the story here. I would love to continue editing and updating articles on Wikipedia, but Amaury makes it very hard to do so. Whether you read one sentence of this or you read this whole long paragraph, I hope you understand where I am coming from. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to continue editing, but you're not the only editor here. Amaury made a mistake, that's not a big deal, and it's not appropriate for you to personally attack him over that. Don't personalize disputes. If Amaury could not immediately tell what edits were supported by what sources, it's partially because you failed to communicate effectively. Once you were reverted, rather than edit warring, you should have immediately opened up a discussion on the talk page and explained yourself; which edits were supported by which sources. Amaury could have seen where he was in the wrong, and clarified what parts of your edit he still objected to, and we could have gone from there. Communication is required. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. You're expected to engage in discussion if you're reverted, and you're expected to assume good faith, not take content disputes personally, and work to resolve them in a mature way. These are the fundamentals of editing. It's never going to get easier for you if you feel like you're being persecuted any time you get reverted. And, as an aside, looking at Nickandmore, it looks like a self-published source, or in other words, some random person's blog. Even if it is "reliable", and the guy has access to "insider information", that doesn't necessarily make it a "reliable source". If the reliability of a source is disputed, it needs to go to the community and get a consensus. Swarm  {talk}  02:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your signature
Just a comment that I love all the new signatures, and was curious if you have some automatic template on rotation or updated manually (I personally have a thing for the black and white one, but they all look nice.) Though, I'll still maintain no sig has anything on the default ;) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tony, good to see ya dropping by. Glad to see you're amused by the ever-changing sigs, but unfortunately, this is not by design, but by indecision. I had this really cool sig back in the day using this Old English font. Unfortunately, due to what I assume were behind-the-scenes changes in the HTML world, the font eventually stopped working, and AFAIK, you can no longer get that font to render. So, I created a new sig, which I also used for a long time: S warm   ♠ . Recently, I was getting annoyed by what I felt was my excessively-bold signature, and I thought that I had discovered a way to recreate my old "Old English" sig, using Blackletter characters, which are actual html/unicode symbols:  𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪  𝒳. Although I was very pleased with this sig, I got some complaints from people whose browsers didn't support these characters, so my sig just showed up as boxes to them. Thus, I had to, again, recreate a new sig from scratch, which produced the black-and-white sig. This sig probably would have remained stable, but I had a dream in which  was using this bizarre, psychedelic sig that blended these neon colors that were hard for the eye to differentiate, making it this bright, blurry-looking neon-sig. I tried to reproduce the sig, but realizing that something like Swarm {talk} probably wouldn't be well-received, I decided on  Swarm  {talk} . I quickly got insecure about the bright colors, and changed it to  Swarm  {talk}, but, weirdly, an editor emailed me, saying that they liked the new sig, and wished I hadn't changed it. I told them I'd change it back, but didn't end up doing it until just recently, to commemorate the Senior editor milestone, stupid as that may be. The tildes were added as a subtle tribute to , who used them similarly in his signature. The user was some Ph.D. mathematician, just trying to contribute in good faith, who was so unfairly savaged at RfA that he quit the project, right as I started dabbling with Wikipedia. He never replied to my attempts to reach out, and subsequently vanished his account, but his treatment was the primary motivator for my getting involved here, and I've never been able to forget it. The incident also motivated me to cofound a massive RfA reform project, which ended up putting me in touch with my own RfA nominator, and here I am. Anyway, that's probably a really boring story, but that's the story nonetheless. Hope all is well. Best regards,  Swarm  {talk}  07:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Request
Hi Swarm! It's almost four months since Autopatrolled right revoked from my account. I have created about 60 articles. The draft responsible for the incident Pramod Kharel has been created. I think User:Winged Blades of Godric also won't oppose (he had requested you to revoke AP). I think RS won't be an issue in future. Please restore AP right in my account.-- Binod Basnet  (talk)  09:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Swarm  {talk}  21:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Swarm -- Binod Basnet  (talk)  22:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Request
Hi Swarm, could you please take a look at my request for NPR ? Regards,  AD  Talk 05:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Need to make a Request
Hello Swarm and Happy New Year. I have been with Wikipedia English for more than a year and have created more than 20 pages. As I can now put some more time on Wikipedia, could you tell me what further sources are available to me (…. Patrol, etc.)? thank you.Alex-h (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly asking for help
Swarm, first off, I want to apologize. I honestly and truly tried my best to be brief in the archived discussion rebuttal of the dispute between myself and NS. And to be truthful, I thought I did so. Obviously you and others didn't think as much. I tried to follow the example you gave in how to best lay out the issues I have with NS but somehow I guess I still went too in detail. I still feel that my response was a heck of a lot shorter than the wall that NS presented though. And then when he rebuilt the wall, I think I at least showed a modicum of wisdom by knowing to STF up and wait for an admin or such to advise.

I am honestly and truthfully trying my best here to be a productive member of WP. I make bold moves and try to keep things clean when it comes to vandalism. I also freely admit that I've made mistakes. But I also don't feel I should have to put up with NS and his belittling of me and my writing styles. I think a lot of people around here know that NS is a problem, and I'm frankly quite fed up with him being a problem to me and to others.

I'm hoping you and I can somehow make a fresh start, for lack of a better term. What do I need to do to make this better? I'm coming to you with an open hand and asking for help here. Let me know. - SanAnMan (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In a few words, what's the user's most severe offense? Swarm'  {talk}  21:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The worst is his WP:WikiBullying by way of personal attacks from his first wall of text. A few examples are:
 * "Your own writing, from your vocabulary to your overall skills at composition, SanAnMan, ranges from subpar to awful."
 * "You're not the first person with a lower level of literacy than I to make edits to Wikipedia. But you take the prize for being the first one who insists upon his edits as if they are equal to or somehow superior to those of people who write well."
 * "You don't write well, and you constantly make arbitrary changes that are not supported by policy or by basics of good writing"
 * I gave a few other examples in my original rebuttal, but I'm trying to KISS. Thank you for listening and understanding. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!
Thanks! Swarm {talk}  20:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Adamstom at it again
Besides edit-warring at Iron Fist (TV series) in a fashion that is symptomatic of his classic WP:OWN behaviour for which you warned him, he's now making bogus accusations against me that I'm not willing to do the "good faith" option when dealing with copyright violation. It also seems pretty clear the only reason he's doing this now is that the copyvio in question was added by one of his "friends" who helps him OWN the various articles in question, and coming after editors for "attacking" your friends (when really the worst I've been doing is desperately trying to urge Favre to acknowledge his copyvio and help clean it up -- Seriously, take the hint here. I'm trying to help you, but you are digging yourself a hole that you're not going to be able to get out of. [...] I'm begging you to [apologize, and promise to do your utmost to do better in the future and to try to clean up all the plagiarized text you've added over the years, so you won't get blocked to prevent further damage to the project].) is pretty WP:BATTLEGROUND-y.

I've asked him to retract You yourself could have given a small c/e to the areas that you felt were copied too much from the source. But I know the simple, good faith solution to a problem is too much to ask of you.[], given that I showed him four diffs of me doing just that, but if he doesn't I would like to ask you to perhaps give him a slightly sterner warning about accusations made without evidence.

Please note that I'm not asking you to get involved in the copyvio affair itself. There are already two many cooks in that pie, and I haven't even formally thanked for their insightful and helpful advice on the matter yet (sorry, just remembered that as I was writing this), and going to more and more admins to look into that would add fuel to the misconception that I'm looking to get someone blocked for it.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I have a better solution in mind. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I tried. (As an aside, the comment he collapsed was in relation to an edit I didn't notice was a month old. I went through the first page of contribs for this and since that guy edits at such a rapid pace I was assuming all of them were "recent". Just in case you were wondering.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As an aside, would you mind terribly if I asked you to look into this? The guy's been a completely intolerable pain acting far below the bare minimum of civility every time I've interacted with him over the last two years. I've got half a mind to take this latest incident to ANI, but if you think it doesn't look like it's worth the drahma I'll ... wait until he says "fuck", I guess. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Query
Hi Swarm, Firstly, Thanks for granting me NPR rights but when i tag afd or other cleanup and maintenance tags on article twinkle automatically marked page as patrolled. How to off this automatic feature? is there will be any problem in such case?  AD  Talk 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can disable this feature in your Twinkle preferences, accessible at WP:TWPREF, in the "Tag" section. Also, have you tried using the curation toolbar? Swarm  {talk}  21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes i am using curation toolar for marking page as patrolled and thankyou i'll off the automatic feature from WP:TWPREF.  AD  Talk 06:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Help request archived
Swarm, my previous reply to you in regards to my request for help was archived. Was I still somehow wrong with my response? - SanAnMan (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have replied at the AN thread, and I think my advice there is applicable to both of you. Swarm  {talk}  20:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. I honestly had stopped checking the ANI board because it was just NS complaining more about the same stuff. I hope I did the right thing by staying out of it. Have a good day. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely not! Thanks, ! Same to you! Swarm  {talk}  23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, feminist (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice
In response to this request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has determined that arbitration is not required at this stage. While the Committee takes community concerns about wheel-warring seriously, they agree that in this instance the issue has already been resolved by the parties, and does not require further examination. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv 🍁  15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback Question
Hi Swarm, First, I want to thank you for granting me rollback. However, I have a question. I have reverted two edits to talk pages(they were really inappropriate), but is this okay for rollback? Or is rollback limited to only articles and lists?

Thank you very much, -- It's  Boothsift  03:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you can use it on talk pages, same as articles. Swarm  {talk}  20:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Thanks! The SandDoctor Talk 04:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
SR4 ☎ 21:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail
G6cid (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Mixed message?
Did you mean "staying uninvolved" or something? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. And thanks, autocorrect, for that edit summary. 🙄 Swarm  {talk}  23:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Happens to me all the time—and Google as I might, I have yet to figure out how to turn off autofill in Conkeror. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Filip Bandžak again
Dear Swarm, First thank you for your kind attention and help. I would like to ask you tp check Filip Bandžak article. One said I might create it again but I had to make an admin do permission for it and maybe it is suitable for the WP criteria. I am presenting the article for you, and I hope you will support the rewriting the article. Thank íou for your kind attention.Borgatya (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The last article was deleted in 2016, due to lack of coverage in sources. Has there been significant coverage since then? Swarm  {talk}  00:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Persistant Sockpuppetry and Nonconstuctive Edits related to the Chicago Band page

 * Hello Swarm. I wanted to alert you that the "Chicago band genre warrior from Lakewood" from the user JARCILLA appears to be continuing under the new IP address (112.201.92.7).  The party in question cannot edit the Chicago page due to protection, but has gone back and remade many of the exact same edits that user JARCILLA or one of his alias IP addresses did back in December 2018.  The following pages were edited with the same exact edits by user 112.201.92.7 that user JARCILLA made:

1)New Edit: 11:40, 18 January 2019 diff hist +14‎  Matt Heafy ‎ Original edit:  17:18, 24 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎. 2)New Edit: 11:40, 18 January 2019 diff hist  +5‎  Corey Beaulieu  Original edit:  17:17, 24 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎. 3)New Edit: 11:42, 18 January 2019 diff hist +60‎  Raising Hell (Bullet for My Valentine song) ‎Original edit:  06:49, 14 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ (used another IP address [76.171.112.116] instead of a User name but with the same edit). 4)New Edit: 11:44, 18 January 2019 diff hist  +131‎  No Way Out (Bullet for My Valentine song)  Original edits:  07:28, 7 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ and 07:29, 7 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎. . (1,820 bytes) +2‎ (used another IP address [76.171.112.116] instead of a User name but with the same edit). 5)New Edit: 11:45, 18 January 2019 diff hist +165‎  Word Up! (song) ‎ →‎Korn  Original edit:  06:28, 21 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,261 bytes) +179‎ 6)New Edit: 11:46, 18 January 2019 diff hist  +62‎  Here in My Heart (Chicago song) Original edit:  00:13, 23 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎. . (1,738 bytes) +62‎. 7)New Edit: 11:57, 18 January 2019 diff hist +137‎  Sulfur (song) ‎ Original edit:  23:05, 20 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,220 bytes) +140‎ 8) New Edit: 11:59, 18 January 2019 diff hist  +49‎  Projekt Revolution ‎ →‎2004 Original edit: 06:34, 15 December 2018‎ 2606:6000:6602:ad00:e4f8:7a64:d51d:3b33 (talk)‎. . (34,874 bytes) +55‎.(used another IP address [2606:6000:6602:ad00:e4f8:7a64:d51d:3b33] instead of a User name but with the same edit as before). 9) New Edit: 12:05, 18 January 2019 diff hist +204‎  Earth, Wind & Fire ‎ →‎1994–present: Neo-classic period current Original edit on the Chicago (Band) page: 04:15, 15 October 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ . . (136,755 bytes) +61‎.  It seems since he cannot add this to the Chicago (Band) page, he is now adding the same exact edit onto the EWF page. 10) New Edit: 18 January 2019 diff hist  0‎  Template:Chicago (band) Original Edit:  06:38, 17 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,114 bytes) 0‎.

I really do not know the proper process for reporting this, so I figured it best to notify you. I am also going to post this on the page for user Binksternet since he initiated the discussion on this user back in December. Regards209.212.21.197 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, thanks for letting me know. The IP you reported is stale by now, however I found the current one they were using and blocked it for six months. Feel free to let me know if you see them return at another IP. Sw  arm  21:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol status
Thanks very much. I had no idea that the status existed, but this seems a useful feature. Appreciate the consideration. Falastur2 Talk 15:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, thank you for all your contributions! Sw  arm  21:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comic Con
Hi, you flagged Comic Con as "in the process of being merged" about six months ago. Do you have plans to complete that merge? If not, I'll remove the tag. It's just a distraction now, and it looks like no one is paying attention to it anyway. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not involved with the merge, I was just the closer for the proposal. I had no idea it was still tagged as pending the merge. I'll go ahead and just redirect under the assumption that there's no relevant content that needs to be merged into the new article, and if anyone disagrees, they may get it from the redirect's history. Sw  arm  02:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
The SandDoctor Talk 22:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to have anything. When did you send it? Sw  arm  00:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * January 21st, figured it might have been lost in your inbox so thought I'd follow up here. Happy to resend if you want. -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got those, sorry for the lack of response. I've replied. Sw  arm  03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Same . -- The SandDoctor Talk 15:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi, i think that someone took the control of my account and rollbacked your comment on your own talk. Although it was not me, i would like to apologize for this, since my account was used for this irrelevant rollback. I succeeded in changing swiftly my password and i think it's ok for now, but if you have some tips in order to lower that kinda risks, they would be useful for me. Thanks and again, my apologies. Wish you a great rest of your day. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. You sure it wasn't you? Sometimes I accidentally clock rollback if I'm scrolling on my phone. If you're sure your account got compromised, the best thing to do is change your password to a strong one that isn't used anywhere else. However, you can also enable two-factor authentication, which will give your account an extremely high level of security. Sw  arm  00:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't 2FA only for admins and the fancy people? I didn't know average users could enable that yet. PackMecEng (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advices. I checked all my preferences and changed my password with a longer and much stronger one. I'm absolutely sure it was not me, i was not using my phone and was cooking (!!!) from 23.15 to 23.25. Thanks a lot and sorry for the bother. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I guess you're right. I didn't realize it was limited access. Well, disregard that part for now Wikaviani. It's no trouble at all, hope you don't have any further issues! Sw  arm  00:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , There are ways around that if 2fa would really be a benefit. Keeping in mind that 2fa can make it VERY difficult to access your account if you don't fully understand what it entails. SQL Query me!  06:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I'm not a fan of 2FA anyway, I think it's an excessive burden that isn't really necessary. So, you won't see me me urging anyone to enable it. What are your thoughts on all this 2FA hype going around since the recent security breaches? ~Swarm~  {talk}  06:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Enterprisey • JJMC89
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg BorgQueen
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svgprisey

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
 * Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news
 * A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

YouGotMail!

 * Haven't heard back yet. Just following up. Sorry if you have been busy, Swarm. Thank you for all the work you do. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  01:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry, I've been out of town for a few days. Will get back to you soon. ~Swarm~   {talk}  02:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi Swarm, I saw your profile on the Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters page, and I would like to take the chance if I can seek adoption from you. Some background from me: I created my profile 3 years ago, but I only became active for the past few months. I do part-time Wikipedia editing, usually after my full-time job and weekends. Most of my edits are sports stuff and different programs under the Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International organization (listed on my user page). Whether you would accept or decline, I would like to thank you in advance and God bless you! elivic (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)elivic
 * Yeah, I'd be happy to adopt you! Was there anything specific you wanted help with now, or just someone to contact if you ever need anything? Either is fine, just let me know! Swarm  {talk}  03:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your quick response! Either is fine for me as well. For now, I would like to know if there are best practices in creating sports and TV program articles? Advices are highly appreciated as well. Thank you! elivic (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)elivic
 * I'm also having this trouble of the article 4th Wish 107.5 Music Awards being speedily deleted because "the subject is not important enough" and "referencing the notability from a high-quality third-party source". Unfortunately, Philippine media does not tend to support competitor TV and/or radio stations, and this event is unGoogleable except for the FM station that presents it. May I get some advice from you regarding this? Thank you in advance! elivic (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)elivic
 * It was not deleted because it was "not important enough", it was deleted because it did not "indicate the importance or significance", and looking at the article, I agree. There was no claim of importance or significance. For more information on this concept, see WP:SIGNIFICANCE. But, to simplify, why is that award ceremony important or significant? There are a lot of awards out there, most of which aren't notable, and even the ones that are, that doesn't mean their annual ceremonies are notable. Why should this one get an article? Swarm  {talk}  22:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, this event is the only music awards in the Philippines (maybe the only one in the world as well) that donates money to charities, which are picked by the winners. The advocacy of the founder made it unique through public service. elivic (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)elivic
 * Sorry for the delay. Since you have a claim to significance, you shouldn't have this issue again. Just make sure it's reported in the article with a source. Sw  arm  20:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to userbox

 * Wow, thanks for the kind words ! Much appreciated. Please let me know if there's ever anything you need. Best, Sw  arm  22:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I definitely will  A 10 fireplane Imform me  23:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Your signature
~Swarm~ {talk}

Hi Swarm! How is this one? -- Ruyaba  (talk)  05:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, you've noticed my changing sigs, huh? It's pretty nice. I'll try it out for awhile. Thanks, ~Swarm~  {talk}  06:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a bad looking sig -- The SandDoctor  Talk 00:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Title customisation
Hey there Swarm, for a while I've been trying to improve my user page in every possible way, and when I came across your custom title, I immediately wanted to add something like it to my own user page. Unfortunately, while I am aware of the DISPLAYTITLE template, I am still a bit of a noob when it comes to HTML and wiki markup. I've had several failed attempts to write a code for my user page, so could you help me out a bit? Cheers! GN-z11 ☎★ 17:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. So, I'm not that great at understanding these codes myself, actually, but I can tell you the basics: So, first, you start with   (or User talk: on your talk page obviously). You cannot change the text itself, you can only modify the style, so if you modify any of the text, none of it will work. So, how to modify the style? The basic parameters that I know of are  <span style="background:(color);color:(color);font-family:(serif, sans-serif, monospace);text-shadow: (#)px (#)px (#)px (color)">(text being modified)  . I've added an example on your user page, here, and I removed the grey background here so you can see the shadow effect (play around with the numbers to get it how you want). You can also add tags like  for underline, <i> for italics,, , as I did here. If you have any questions about what I did, just let me know.  ~Swarm~   {talk}  03:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Big kudos! I briefly changed the code you already saved, and voila! Much appreciated. GN-z11  ☎  ★ 13:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * could you help me with this title I can't seam to get it wo work A 10 fireplane Imform me  19:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * fixed. Note that it will not transclude to your main userpage, you will have to copy the code to the main page and remove "/Userpage" from the title. ~Swarm~   {talk}  21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome thank you  A 10 fireplane Imform me  21:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Accepting Adoptees still?
Hello Swarm:

I saw your name on the List of Adopters. Would you consider adopting me? I am trying to be a more experienced user to contribute more efficiently to the project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kindest Regards, &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  23:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to help! Did you have any questions to start with? If not, feel free to come by any time. ~Swarm~   {talk}  00:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have no clue what to even ask to be honest. I'm unsure how it normally works. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  02:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Actually, I just thought of something! I've asked this to another user, but I would like a second opinion. I made an RfC, but no one has really commented much on it. I really want to promote it (even if people tell me it's the worst idea they have ever heard), but I do not want to get accused of WP:CANVAS. I'm also trying to be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON, but no one seems to want to respond there besides me... Thoughts? Advice? &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  04:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there's no firm structure to this or expectations from you. I will be here to mentor you as needed. I'll be your point of contact whenever you have questions, need advice or guidance, or if you get into any difficult situations and need assistance. I'll also check in periodically if I don't hear from you for a while. Anyways, to answer your question, it already looks like you've advertised it around pretty well, and it's transcluded at WP:VPP. I actually think it's getting a reasonable degree of attention so far, and it has unanimous support! I would say so far, so good! One more thing you can do though is add it to WP:CENT, which is for discussions with a widespread impact. Since you're proposing an entirely new noticeboard, it would be appropriate to add there. I'll go ahead and add it for you (see below)! Other than that, I honestly think you've advertised it as much as you can! Now all you can do is be patient! :) ~Swarm~   {talk}  21:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , woah! Thank you! I wasn't sure whether or not it warrarented being included on WP:CENT since it was unclear whether or not a discussion needs to meet certain participation criteria to get there. I really appreciate the willingness to help, Swarm! &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  02:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anytime. :) ~Swarm~   {talk}  19:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RfAWB
Sorry for annoying you again Swarm, but I've submitted an WP:RFP/AWB request recently and nobody reviewed it. I've contacted other admins but all said they're not familiar with giving extended rights. Since you're (from what I see) the busiest and most active admin in giving extra permissions, could you please review it? Cheers, GN-z11  ☎  ★ 06:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seen this yet? GN-z11  ☎  ★ 10:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ earlier, sorry, I forgot to reply here! ~Swarm~   {talk}  04:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

UTRS ticket 23913
Hi,

Just to let you know, User:Jezzy-lam who you blocked, has lodged an unblock request on UTRS. Your input, if you can offer anything further, would be appreciated.-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied at UTRS. In short, I agree with your approach. User has not responded to your queries. ~Swarm~   {talk}  03:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input - perhaps I should have made it clearer that it's just to see if we can restore TPA for them to post an unblock request. I suspect they've not responded because I've asked them to explain their previous edits and why they were wrong which does not fill me with hope because it then looks as if they still don't understand.  Sometimes I think blocked editors assume that they will be automatically unblocked if they use the Unblock Ticket Request System *sigh*.-- 5 albert square (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)