User talk:Swarm/Archive 3

Mass nomination of important images
How many of important images on civilian casualties or war crimes committed by the United States like this one File:Mahmoudiya_rape_murder_scene_2006.jpg did you recently nominate for various deletion processes on Wikipedia? IQinn (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, let me count...  Swarm  X
 * (note how I'm not removing this with no response) I've nominated images eight for deletion, and I tagged one for SD. This wasn't meant to be a "mass nomination"; the images were tagged during a review of your uploads. I know what you're thinking: I must be wikistalking you, right? Well, I hope you can trust that I'm not stalking you to annoy or harass you. I reviewed some of your images, and tagged nine more (again, one for speedy, eight for FFD) I simply didn't get around to reviewing the rest yet.
 * Why am I reviewing your images, you wonder? In my opinion, the previous deletion of seven images you uploaded for invalid copyright tags indicates that more images you've uploaded may also have invalid tags -- my suspicions have proven correct. I simply don't feel you completely understand copyright policy. For example, you claim (in a couple images) that the image may be in public domain because there's allegedly no copyright laws in Afghanistan. Copyright policy does not support this claim; in fact, if there's no copyright in a work's source country, there may still be copyright in the United States (where Wikipedia's servers are located). It's not your fault, and if you disagree you're free to say so. However, the fact that you feel images are "important" is not a valid rationale for keeping an image. The images are tagged at WP:FFD; you're not a newbie, I don't need to tell you that you're free to comment.  Swarm  X 11:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There has never been a problem with these images. They all have a valid fair use rational. I still believe you do not have any knowledge on Copyright laws like the DMCA. They are perfectly fine to use under fair use. I have explained to you but it looks like you do not want to listen. These images are highly important to Wikipedia have a valid free use rational and are not replaceable. We can never be sure how old or from what background editors come but let me assure you. There are big differences on images of lets say of Pokemon and these images. I does not really matter if it was meant to be a mass deletion. I think it is one. It concerns almost all images Wikipedia has on a number of important issues ranging from civilian casualties of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to war crimes committed by the United States. Past interactions, your work on war related articles, the fact that you are the only one who sees a problem with this long standing images, your attempt of mass deletion and the fact that you did not notify the up loader could make one think that you try to clean up all images from Wikipedia that might show an inconvenient truth. Not saying it is the case but one could easily think this.
 * It is against the basic rules not to notify the editor who uploaded the images. I request that you immediately provides me with a list of all the images you have nominated for various deletion processes. IQinn (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, as to their "valid rationale", save it. Argue where it's appropriate.


 * Second, I didn't fail to notify you, I simply hadn't done so yet. I was going to notify you after I was done tagging them (as I said, I was not done reviewing them). I could send you 9+ template messages or simply write one message once I had tagged all the images. I assumed you could figure it out for yourself when I said "the images are at WP:FFD". Stop flinging around accusations of bad faith and look!


 * On another note, you talk about "past interactions" (you unsuccessfully argued against me many times -- those interactions?), my work on war related articles (don't see what you're implying, I've done relatively little major content work), the fact that I'm the only one who has a problem with them (very few users are familiar with copyright policy), "attempting mass deletion" (I found many problems and I dealt with them in accordance with process) and the fact that I didn't notify you (I explained quite clearly above why). What's the inconvenient truth, IQinn? That I, personally, don't want your images on Wikipedia? The truth is I don't have an opinion on them one way or another. This is Wikipedia, we have rules and are bound by laws. My nominations for deletion are completely policy based. Again, see Files for deletion/2010 November 11 for the discussions. I'll send you standard templated messages from now on to avoid any attempts at convenience, even if it floods your page.


 * Furthermore, I explained above, but you didn't read it apparently: public domain in a source country may still be copyrighted in the United States. The argument only weakens your own standpoint since it shows unfamiliarity with policy.  Swarm  X 12:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So far i see you nominated at least 14 images. That's i think almost all we have in this field. You might have a look at this Wikilawyering for your "This is Wikipedia, we have rules and are bound by laws." and you might provide many diffs for the "you unsuccessfully argued against me many times". Highly doubtful and not important. One should never forget the greater goal we have at Wikipedia. The unnecessary mass deletion of these images that show children raped, murdered and bombed in the recent wars (inconvenient truth) would leave Wikipedia presenting a one sided picture of these wars. This it is unacceptable and unnecessary. As said nobody ever claimed that these images are public domain images. Most of the images might or might not be copyrighted. Thats why they are all marked as fair use and provided with a fair use rational. This is perfectly fine with the copyright laws in the United States and elsewhere. Specially since the enacting of the DMCA. I am very familiar with the rules and laws on copyright. 1) Could you please explain why you think Wikipedia could not use these images under fair use when all the other even commercial web service provider are allowed to do so under the new DMCA and other copyright laws? 2) Could you please name the copyright laws that you see violated? 3) How are these laws violated? These images are highly important not replaceable and there is no problem with copyright. You said you are familiar with copyright laws so i would like to ask you to answer my questions. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. The answer is very simple, their fair use rationale is completely invalid. You claim that they're unique historic images. This rationale is used when the images themselves have had critical commentary. Even the tag you're using says "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)."
 * 2.& 3. No. I'm not going to get into a legal debate with you. I don't know what country you're from, but copyright laws vary. It is the purpose of Wikipedia's copyright policy to create a uniform set of rules for all users.  Swarm  X 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The fair use rational is completely valid. These are images of historic incidents - these images can not be recreated. A image does not only become historic because somebody comment on it. You are absolutely mistaken with your definition. These images are uniquely historic under our own rules. They show moments and incidents from the past that can not be recreated. They are perfectly fine to use under our own rules for fair use and existing copyright laws in the United States and other major countries.
 * 2.& 3) You claim the use of these images under the fair use rules would violated copyright laws. They do not. Yes i fully agree with you copyright laws vary from country to country. We do not to debate them all here but you claimed the images would violate copyright laws. So let me ask you again. Please name a law that you claim have been violated? I do not care what country but you should be able to provide us at least with one country or law and some diffs that could back up your claims. I am very familiar with copyright laws of many countries. No problem with these images the are highly important to Wikipedia and perfectly fine to use under our own fair use rules and the fair use rules of copyright laws especially the one in the United States that we care the most of. IQinn (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that non of the article i checked of the articles where the large group of images are included has the ffdc tag or it has one that links to the wrong discussion page. Any reason why you did not add this tag to the images? Are you still going to do this? I think you as the deletion tag placer should do so. The ifd tag that you placed on this large group of images clearly describes the procedure if you are not familiar with the rules. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason is that all of the tagging was done automatically, and twinkle doesn't handle captions. If there is a caption somewhere that links to the wrong page, it's not my doing. WP:FFD only says "If the image is in use, also consider adding File_name.ext to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." It's not a required part of deletion process, and I simply don't have the time to do it manually. Anyone's free to do so, but it's not required.  Swarm  X 06:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let me assure you that this is common practice on Wikipedia. The tag itself describes the nomination process and it says: "Add a notice in the caption on each page in the file links.". This is common practice on Wikipedia and is needed as most people who work on the articles and people who have subscribed to article do not know about the nomination for deletion as they are mostly not subscribed to the image pages. I must say your refusal to do so even after you got notified about this makes me wonder. You did have the time to mass nominate these images. While not acting in bad faith sometimes certain actions can be problematic to the work we do and the greater goal we have. Important images could get lost just because you do not have the time to add this tag to the article after you mass nominated them. Please do not take this as an offence. Everyone should be open for critic.
 * I have ask you two times to name the copyright laws that you claim had been violated. You fail to name any laws or to provide any proof or diff for you claim so that we have to assume that i am right with my position. There is no copyright violation. These images are perfectly fine to use under fair use, under the copyright laws especially the one of the United States that we care the most about. Please no offence but i think your mass nomination although not done in bad faith has caused trouble as editors who are interested in keeping important content on Wikipedia are forced to respond to a very large number of deletion nomination at the same time and they are even forced to add the notification tag themselves. As said no offence but even actions not done in bad faith can cause problems and could lead to the fact Wikipedia looses important content. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and we should never loose track on the greater goal we have. IQinn (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actions not done in bad faith has caused trouble
 * I couldn't have said it better myself about invalid fair use tags and other copyrighted images that have been uploaded. Now, look at ffd ← click that. LOOK at it. It doesn't say to add a notice in the caption. Link me to where it does, because if I'm wrong, I'll fix it. Deletion process says to consider it, but I don't have time. In fact, I'm only on Wikipedia to reply to you and to monitor WP:AAU, otherwise, I'm doing things in the real world. Do it if you want, link it if I'm wrong, otherwise I can't.  Swarm  X 21:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Re :-
Hey Swarm,

Thnks for the message. i will remember not to add signatures to article edits. and yes i havent forgotten my adopter :-P many thanks again Warm Rgds ClintonClintong (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Swarm,

Thank you for your adoption! Your help and guidance will be most appreciated! Best, NM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.m.m (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Executed
Template:Executed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus   20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Surrender
Template:Surrender has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus   20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus and Iraq War
I have given a source for the claim of 'Coalition combat operations have concluded'. I don't think there will be any more trouble from Marcus and his odd objections to removing the text "U.S." G.R. Allison (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the source; it will certainly put an end to this nonsense.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it would too, but I appear to now have him accusing me of sock-puppetry after asking him why he edited my user page for no reason and with no explanation.


 * He sent me this;


 * 'See Ownership and editing of user pages. Userpages cannot be owned. If Cluster duck is your account, you must follow the procedure at Alternative account notification.'


 * What should I do about that in your opinion? Thanks. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that I am in no way connected to the account 'Cluster duck'. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, Cluster duck's only edit was to add the word 'thanks' to your userpage. When Marcus tried to remove 'thanks' (for whatever reason), you restored it, which is probably why he suspects the account may be yours. It's a non-issue, you've said that it's not you're account and there's no reason to discuss it with him any further.


 * While Marcus is right in that you don't necessarily "own" or have explicit rights to your userpage, you're reasonable in asking him to refrain from editing it due to the precedent that users generally shouldn't do so without good reason. I'd advise you to leave the situation alone. I think it's unlikely that he will edit your userpage further or even associate with you further in the current matters. Striking the warning shows good faith on his part (despite his unnecessary response) and I think the matter is resolved.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that edit is rather odd as I had always assumed I had written "thanks", I didn't notice the 'Cluster duck' edit but it's of no importance now. Thank you for your guidance on this matter, I appreciate it. Have a good day. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Drive – Final push
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I hereby award you this kitten for your calm and reasoned vote to my RfA. I'm sorry that you didn't feel that you could oppose but I will do my best to allay your fears in my new position. If you're ever concerned about my conduct, please let me know and I will do everything I can to fix it and if you ever need help from a janitor feel free to shoot me a line! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin help
An adoptee told me that specific location was a draft article (about a bust) they made and are asking for assistance because it was deleted (CSD A1). Can someone check it for me? Please userfy it here, or let me know if it's a blank article. I'm wondering whether the inappropriate title led to some confusion on the subject. If there's anything worth userfying, I'll help them develop it in the userspace.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The content was "South Entrance, Indiana State Captiol, Indianapolis, IN" --Stephen 03:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi Swarm, Thanks for offering to adopt me. I'd like to take you up on your offer. Before making any significant edits, I've been observing how larger scale edits are conducted. I think I'm ready to do so. So how do we proceed from here? GoetheFromm (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 00:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Bust of William H. English (Indiana Statehouse, Rotunda)
I replied on my talk page, and added to my comment on Nicole's page, but I had various other comments on the article which I might have made if I hadn't spent so much time tidying it up - and this page seems the best place, so you can discuss them with her. Perhaps you've already done so, sorry if I'm just stating the obvious PamD (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * title - doesn't need disambiguation
 * notability - is it notable? Does every bust in every public building merit an article?
 * category - not outdoor art
 * style- the whole thing reads like an entry in a museum catalogue, rather than a WP article. Do we need to know that there are no foundry marks and it has visible chips on the base? We certainly didn't need to know that it wasn't easy to reach the base without "steps, ladder or stool" or whatever the phrase was.
 * Poor structure - info on who William Hayden English was is muddled with where the statue is
 * No wikilinks
 * Poor spelling / grammar / proofreading ("it's" at least twice where "its" is meant, and the interesting statement "his state is located directly outside of the entrance ..." etc)
 * measurements need to be accurate or approximate, but "about 2.5 to 3 feet tall" is neither
 * poor writing: "The base of the niche rests at about 4 feet with the base being about 2.5 to 3 feet tall, with the bust placed on top." uses "base" twice in different senses (of statue and niche) as I worked out after a couple of readings. Perhaps "statue's base" would clarify.
 * etc etc. I was quite restrained in my editing yesterday, limiting myself to commenting out structural matter which shouldn't be there, and removing the 2 leading spaces which had corrupted format of paragraphs.

Final Question to Swarm and PamD
Thank you for looking over and editing my article. I have looked over your edits and suggestions per my instructor and have made some editions and edits as well. My understanding was that this is a "work in progress" and didn't fully realize complications of my poor grammar and spacing would do the article. I am very "green" to Wikipedia. I was more concerned with gathering appropriate references outside of wiki links to substantiate my article. What I initially found was sparse and I was very concerned about that initially. I was working backwards, my apologies and not an appropriate approach to this project.

If you wouldn't mind, can you look at my other article, Untitled, Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, and Pioneer Family? I worked on the consistency of my language. But I do not want that article to also sound like a museum catalogue entry.


 * I want to clean up my reference list. How do I retrieve the expanded version of my reflist?

Nicole 8:10 PM EST 6 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Hey Nicole. Let me just make it clear that PamD was offering her opinion that the article should be grammatically flawless before even being put into the live article space ; you didn't really do anything wrong per se. My advice is to not worry about it. I looked at your article and it's looking a lot better. I see nothing that must be improved for it to be suitable on Wikipedia.


 * To answer your question, you have to edit references individually since the refs are placed inline; you can't exactly edit your whole reflist.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Somalia
I've revived the Somalia positive spin debate if you'd like to chime in.--Louiedog (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed adopt-a-user bot task
Please see Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user for more information and give your input. Thank you. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

tyvm
Thanks for that unexpected barnstar! --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem!  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your adoptee needs help
I've been informed by another editor that I've violated 3RR today, but I don't think that I have. Can you let me know if I have?

Also, I have a question about the reliability of a source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37520303/Cyrus-Cylinder-Jona-Lendering


 * Here is another version of the source: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html
 * Thanks, GoetheFromm (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The website is not peer reviewed and seem to be more of a reflection of his personal beliefs/interpretations.

Also, the article has very little in text citations. The author is somewhat of an amateur historian.

Thanks for your help on these matters. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, you have not violated the three revert rule. As to the source, it's questionable...I would ask over at the reliable sources noticeboard. Whatever you do, don't get into an edit war (or violate 3RR)! Doing so might get you blocked (not by me, for the sake of clarity), and that's not good for anyone. If you're in a dispute, see the noticeboard I previously linked to, and also consider using request for comment or third opinion. If you need help with anything else, please let me know.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 13:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, it seems another user has already brought it up at the noticeboard.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been taken to the article talk page, for some reason (where he's suggested I might be "complicit in promoting an edit war". I've posted there his 3 reverts, but here they are for you to check, I may be wrong:, , . Oh hell, I've just looked at RSN, he's accusing me of promoting an edit war there also. Will you please have a chat with him about what is appropriate where? I know I mentioned a minor edit war, but I made it clear that was only part of it. There is some edit warring going on, not serious enough to deal with at the moment, but I didn't mention him or 3RR there, but he's taken it there as well, including your comments on his talk page. I don't know what to do about that - if I am right about there being 3, maybe you could point that out at RSN? And of course if I'm wrong, I'll apologise. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Swarm, hate to bother you on matters like the one I currently need your assistance on, as I have other projects and questions that I’d like to get your help on (I’m gonna create a new section on those questions and items). But could I possibly can get your help on these 3 questions?


 * 1) On three separate pages: My own talk pageUser_talk:GoetheFromm, the Cyrus Cylinder discussion page Talk:Cyrus_Cylinder, as well as WP:RSN Reliable_sources/Noticeboard DougWeller still covertly and overtly claims the existence of an “edit war,” or of his ‘warning’ (and claiming) that an editor is in violation of editing standards. I’ve been very careful not do this.  I’ve read the Wikipedia 3RR policy over and over and don’t think that I am in violation.  I asked you earlier and you answered me that I hadn't (and I even refrained from editing the page in question as good faith behavior), yet DougWeller, on various forums, still seems to insist that I have violated 3RR.  Have I?


 * 2)   Has Prioryman violated 3RR rule on the Cyrus Cylinder page on 15 December 2010 (see below)?  Because after checking the edit history of page (per DougWeller's inspiration of his concern about me), Prioryman has manually undone 3+ separate edits and more within 24 hours. I   Priory's own descriptions indicates that he reverted material, as seen directly below [] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyrus_Cylinder&action=history:

(cur | prev) 09:20, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,615 bytes) (→Mesopotamian and Persian tradition and propaganda) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:17, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,616 bytes) (→Description) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:16, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,615 bytes) (→Description: - cited) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:13, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,550 bytes) (→Scholarly views) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:11, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,548 bytes) (→Dispute between Iranian Government and British Museum) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:11, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,543 bytes) (→Exhibition history) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:09, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,537 bytes) (→Exhibition history) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:08, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (89,491 bytes) (→Scholarly views: - restored Dandamaev, as he's talking about the Cylinder, so it's obviously relevant) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:04, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (88,801 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:03, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (88,782 bytes) (→As the "First of Charter of Human Rights": - restored previous version, mainstream academic view should take precedence) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:00, 15 December 2010 Prioryman (talk | contribs) (88,946 bytes) (Per Dougweller, "waste dump" is more accurate (i.e. where the spoil from the excavation ended up)) (undo)


 * 3)   If my question 2 does indeed indicate a violation of 3RR by Prioryman, then is it typical for admins/editors to ignore some and not others?  Incidentally, Should I be concerned with this behavior and what is my recourse to have it rectified?


 * I have so many other questions to ask, but don't want to bother you with too much. So I'll work step by step with my questions. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Covertly? What does that mean? It's typical for every editor to miss stuff, but I haven't missed any violation by Prioryman. As I've already said, somewhere to you, consecutive edits count as one, so all the edits above from 9 to 9:20 count as one edit for 3RR purposes. And I have continually pointed out to GeotheFromm that he has not violated 3RR, he'd reached 3RR - one more would have been a violation. See for instance User talk:GoetheFromm. I deliberately didn't give him a templated 3RR warning as I wanted it to be friendlier. I'm not exactly pleased that he keeps claiming I said he'd violated it. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, thank you truly for your assistance on this matter. You've given me useful direction and mentoring on this matter. DougWeller, let's take this off Swarms page and discuss the appropriate issues on my talk page, your talk page, and appropriate articles. As you see, I always attempt to address your points, but it seems that our discussion are being diluted by too many forums. I'll address your points elsewhere, then, other than here. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR procedure
Thanks for your feedback. So how exactly do I proceed with 3RR procedure? This is how I understand it.

1) First I inform the editor of possible 3RR violation and of investigation, via template (which template is it?). 2) Next, I post inquiry of violation on [WP:AN3]].

Is this correct? I want to make sure I have this right for current and future reference. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You use {{subst:uw-3rr}} to warn someone, and you report it at WP:AN3, correct.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 08:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (Richwales)
Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
To change the subject. . . I was wondering if you could take a look at United States v. Wong Kim Ark. I've been starting to go back to articles I've worked on in the past, and I trimmed some text and added more sources to this one. I'd welcome any feedback. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. It's looking much, much better than it did before you started working on it. The text is now full of citations, of which you've tripled...great job on that end. However an issue I do see is that the images seem pretty unorganized (there are two on each side of the references section). I suggest moving them up to higher sections and aligning some left, perhaps making them smaller if need be. Other than that, the article's looking great. Good job. If you'd help with anything, just let me know. I'd be happy to assist.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My main worry regarding the references I added is that about half of them are cites to the case itself.  I think I was being careful not to misuse "primary sources" (by using them only to substantiate direct quotes or straightforward restatements of facts), but I suppose some people might disagree.  While you're at it, maybe you could also take a look at Vance v. Terrazas; I'm not done updating that one yet, but hopefully you can see where I'm going with it.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done more work on Vance v. Terrazas. I think there are enough sources there now, but I'm concerned that it may be considered top-heavy with primary sources (cites to the cases and statutes themselves).  I've found a few secondary sources that discuss Vance v. Terrazas, but not many.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And I did some work on the images in the Wong Kim Ark article just now.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And I've also been working on Afroyim v. Rusk. Aside from the same general concern that some of the cites I've added might better be replaced with secondary commentaries, there is a lengthy "Effect" section which contains a dozen currently unsourced claims that need to be dealt with one at a time.  Later on, I may try working on Perez v. Brownell — which, up till now, I've never touched — or I might wait to do that until after I've revisited some of the other articles I've worked on in the past.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wong Kim Ark article is looking good with regard to the images now. I'll take a look at the other articles you're working on and share my thoughts sometime later tonight (it's 4:44 PM here right now), just wanted to let you know I've received your messages.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 21:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I made contact the other day with Beys Afroyim's son (Amos Schüller in Austria). He says he's going to send me some photos of his father — pictures which he owns and is prepared to give unrestricted permission to use in Wikipedia and Commons.  He is also going to send me info on a book on US immigration which includes a chapter on his father.  Hopefully this will allow me to add a photo and another secondary source to the Afroyim v. Rusk article.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Sorry I've been unable to help, I've been extremely busy and haven't been able to devote my time to Wikipedia unfortunately.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 08:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. I hope things are going OK with you.  I posted notices on the Law and SCOTUS wikiproject talk pages, asking for feedback on the Wong Kim Ark, Afroyim, and Terrazas pages.  Have a Merry Christmas.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 08:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Adoption
That would be great. I'm a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariuspauling (talk • contribs) 07:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting pictures on articles.
Hello Swarm, This is your adoptee: GoetheFromm. I need some help putting a picture on the Ali Reza Pahlavi page. I've tried reading up on it, but I'm not so clear and how to do. I'd like to do it relatively soon, due to his recent passing away and the high volume of visits to the article. GoetheFromm (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, do you need to upload it or is it already uploaded? If you need to upload it, what is its copyright status (if you don't know, what is the source)?  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson
I believe there is consensus to change the title. If you do it, I will support you. The change is needed because there is a consensus. Not an overwhelming consensus but a moderate consensus.

It is also the correct thing to do. Not a single major news source uses the stilted Wikipedia title. I think those who oppose are just being disruptive thinking that it is funny. Madrid 2020 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the page is move protected, so an admin will either have to move it or unprotect it.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The current title is cyanide
The current title is like cyanide. A few like it but many do not. However, the cyanide lovers are happy that we are so unorganized that they win with the poisonous title. OK, enough with the cyanide analogy.

I agree and disagree with you. Many of us don't like the Tucson title but there is not a good discussion to what it should be. Tell others what we should do....

2011 Casas Adobes shooting - ok as Casas Adobes is a very specific location

Giffords assassination attempt - preferred, same style as Wikipedia's Reagan article and the killer was going after her, not the 9 year old kid. Is this a title you can live with? Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am fine with 'Giffords assassination attempt'. However, it will probably take awhile to agree on a new title, so temporarily specifying the current one should be the first step.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Snake Rattle 'n' Roll GAN
I was wondering if you had any comments regarding my GA nomination with Snake Rattle 'n' Roll before just passing it. I mean, I would think I would have at least a minor issue or so before it could pass. –MuZemike 04:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I hope you don't think I "just passed it"- as in quickly and lightly skimming and passing it with little concern. I don't look for any small issue and put it on hold until that issue is resolved, just so I can say that something was improved, however. If an article meets all the GA criteria, it passes. GAs needn't be utterly flawless, though some reviewers are stricter than others. That said, I would be more than happy to share my thoughts on where the article could be improved.


 * The soundtrack information is pretty vague. Based on what information there is in the article and the games title itself, a reader can infer that the soundtrack is based mostly on oldies music. However, that's where the information stops. According to the oldies article, this can mean music anywhere from 1950 to 1972. Soundtrack isn't always a major aspect of games, but in this game, the title of the game itself seems linked to the theme of the soundtrack. I get the impression that the soundtrack is an important aspect of this game and it's severely lacking in information. The lead says 50s, but the body doesn't specify. In a nutshell: could the information on the soundtrack be expanded?
 * When was the game conceived? When was it developed? How long did development take?
 * The reception section doesn't describe any negative reviews. You may want to consider adding one.
 * Is there a storyline? Perhaps a brief section or subsection describing the plot can be added (or no section with plot information in gameplay). Of course if it's omitted because the plot is an insignificant part of the game, this isn't necessary.
 * I hope this helps.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. If there was more information on what you mentioned above, I would most certainly have included it. As far as a storyline is concerned, there is not much of one at all; what is explained at the beginning of the "Gameplay" section is pretty much it (even less than the "bad buy captures princess; go and rescue princess" storyline). Again, I haven't come across any negative reviews; the problem was I think that the game was not widely known of released, or was overshadowed by other good NES titles at the time like SMB3, Final Fantasy, Mega Man III, Crystalis, Tecmo Super Bowl, etc. (but that's OR). As far as the "oldies" are concerned, I did add "1950s-era" in there to provide some additional context there; if there were any other contemporary reviews of the game or its music, I would have had included it.
 * As far as the development dates are concerned, the Retro Gamer magazine interview didn't give any exact dates; one can only infer that it was between 1989 and 1990 (i.e. sometime after they released Marble Madness for the NES in 1989), but I don't want to go into OR by saying that.
 * In short, I tried to include as much as I could (without going into OR, which is a no-no) given the information I have. Given that this is an old 1990 NES video game, as with many other NES titles (mainly those whose names aren't Mario or Zelda, in which such articles aren't going to have much at all for negative reviews, BTW) aren't going to have much information upon release regarding development or anything like that.
 * Anyways, I appreciate you taking another look at the article. I was just thrown a little off-guard there when you just "passed" the article without a single comment; at least, as a GA reviewer myself, I always try to find at least one or two issues, regardless of how minor, in my reviews, as I feel that you can get some improvement out of a well-constructed GA, even if it's already good. Again, thank you for taking the time to review the article. –MuZemike 22:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I assumed that the article had as much information as you could include. It is an old, somewhat obscure game after all.
 * But you're right. In the future I'll adopt the method of finding some issues to comment on, even when it's a "pass"-worthy article. Reviewing articles isn't the shortest process in the world, so if you're going to take the time, you might as well make as many comments as you can on how the article can be improved, right? Anyway, it was no problem. Good job on the article. (Go Sox)  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:GA nom for Princes Street, Dunedin
Hi Swarm - I'd be happy for you to take over, or to join in - whichever you feel is more appropriate. Rcsprinter's given some advice which has been useful, but if you're more experienced in knowing what is needed for a GA, then anything you say will be of further help. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:WikiThanks.png]] Thanks for helping get this successfully to GA! :) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

GAC
I undid your WP:GAC redirect change. That link is probably included on thousands of pages as WP:GAC. You can not change it without causing thousands of pages to link to the wrong page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. You're correct, it was called "good article candidates" for several years and a few users probably still use it. However, that's the purpose of notices at the top of the page. This is an issue whenever a redirect is changed, but we can't just avoid changing redirects forever, can we? I assume that's not what you think, so what other concerns do you have with linking WP:GAC to the GAC?
 * Note: My edit summary was intended to be "alright, the community has had more than three years to get used used to "GAN" instead of GAC". At this point the criteria are the primary page that "GAC" refers to" (I accidentally hit 'enter' while typing the summary.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with changing redirects is an extremely highly used one is anchored in a sense. Go to the WP:GAC page and hit What links here.  Tell me your estimate for the number of pages linking to GAC that would suddenly link to the wrong page if we changed the redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick scan reveals more than 3000 pages that link to the redirect. If this change affected the WP or article namespaces, you would certainly- certainly have a point. However, considering that these pages are virtually all talk pages, I fail to see how this is a big deal. Your concern will only apply to those reading discussions. The context of these discussions will identify whether someone is talking about the criteria or the nominations page, thus, the "wrong" redirects will not be an issue.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This redirect should not be moved without consensus. If you want to change it open an WP:RFD and let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, so... did your opinion just change? This is relevant because "no consensus for change" alone isn't really a valid argument. Objections notwithstanding, consensus could simply be presumed. Hence why I'm discussing the dispute with you, instead of going directly to RfD- to try to alleviate your concern. It's been changed twice since 2008, and you're the only person who has ever reverted it. Perhaps you could either explain what the specific problem with changing it would be? Your current argument appears to be based on a theoretical problem- the issue isn't demonstrated by a discussion. Another option, however, is to simply give it a chance. See if anyone actually has a problem with it. If it sticks, there's presumably no problem. If it really bothers someone, we can proceed to RfD. If your above concerns are still there, I will absolutely open an RfD.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I reverted it in 2008 and reverted it now. As stated above there are numerous pages that are linked to the GAC redirect.  I probably link to it in discussions several times a day.  Neither WP:FLC nor WP:FAC uses links to WP:WIAFL or WP:WIAFA. Why should GAC link to WP:WIAGA?  For consistency it should remain in addition to the entrenched linkages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What? "FLC" links to "Featured list candidates". "FAC" to "Featured article candidates". That's what the pages are called, the acronyms are accurate literally. There is no parallel here. "GAC" doesn't stand for "good article candidates" because we call them "good article nominations" instead. Why did we change it? I don't know, and don't really care, but we did. If you're thinking "good article candidates" instead of "nominations", that's purely out of a force of habit and isn't rooted in an actual page title. "GAC" means "Good article criteria". That's the literal acronym. Your question is along the lines of "why should we link GAC to WIAGA?" A better question is "why would we link GAC to GAN when an actual GAC page exists"?  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 07:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you feel strongly bring it up at RFD. Your argument has merit and may prevail. I rarely am right in policy debates. I have thrown in my 2 cents and ame sticking with them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll notify you when I start the thread.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 07:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

LoL
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Dave1185 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the barnstar~! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

AFC/R
In retrospect, that was probably an error of judgement on my part. While I still doubt "Patkai Hills" is a common alternate name or whether we actually need such a redirect, consensus seems to be that if X is a geographic feature of type Y, we do have a redirect from "X Y" (such as "Seine river" or "Himalaya mountains"). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Huon (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

List of largest empires
Hello Swarm.

In the article List of largest empires, says that Sassanid Empire had an area of 7.4 million square kilometers, while the list says it had 3.5. Do not know which version is correct. I hope you can correct this.

Regards, MauriManya (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's pretty horrible. Give me awhile and I'll do some research.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi. On behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors, I am inviting you to sign up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. Win a barnstar! It's fun. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OMG refactor
I'm pretty confident you won't mind this, but it's RfA so I feel stupidly obliged to check. If you do wish do indent, sure, no worries at all. Best,  Chzz  ► 03:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, no problem. It was just a thought, no big deal either way. Regards,  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung's RfA
Hi Swarm. In general I'm really wary about indenting votes of other editors (socks and drive-by vandals excluded, of course). As I mentioned to Ed, I trust the crats to weigh votes appropriately, and as a supporter of Kudpung, I'd prefer a "clean" win at RfA, where there's no possible dispute over whether an oppose was "suppressed," if that makes any sense. 28bytes (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that generally we should be very wary about indenting votes of other editors, I think we should also consider the surrounding circumstances. If this was you, you might get some negative responses, but indenting your vote wouldn't even come up. However there's a great deal of controversy regarding this user's behavior at RfA. The response to their questions at previous RfAs has been largely negative, with an Arb requesting they stop, even talk of an RfA ban. In the midst of all this controversy, they then leave an oppose vote with absolutely no explanation. It's these circumstances that make me think we shouldn't even consider the validity of such an action. I hope you at least understand my opinion. As for it being a "clean win" vs "suppressing the opposition", I feel indenting simply gives a more accurate numerical count; if a vote is going to be ignored by a crat anyway, giving equal numerical value to a legitimate opposing rationale just doesn't make sense to me.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I definitely understand where you're coming from. Keepscases annoys the hell out of a lot of people. But it's not hard to figure out why he's opposing Kudpung's RfA: Kudpung has been very vocal about what he views as silly RfA questions, and Keepscases' questions specifically. Given that, I don't think there's any real mystery about why Keepscases opposed, despite him not spelling it out. Is it a "good" reason for opposing? Well, in all honesty, I've seen dumber reasons. Frequently. You probably have too. You may have noticed one oppose at Neelix's RfA that I responded to... the editor wasn't even voting on the right RfA! If stuff like that doesn't get indented, there's no way Keepscases' should be. Say what you will about Keepscases, but at least he knows whose RfA he's voting on. 28bytes (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen some strange RfA votes before, but never someone commenting on the wrong RfA. Face-grin.svg Wow. Not that it matters anymore, but point taken. Regards,  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. I've seen more than a dozen people comment on the wrong RfA recently, although in all but 3 cases they figured it out and refactored their vote before someone pointed it out to them. Then there's the fellow who offered his support based on the candidate's contributions... two minutes before opposing the same RfA because he "did not see his contribution count" when he supported. RfA can be quite entertaining sometimes. (Probably not so entertaining for the candidate, of course.) 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and did you hear about that idiot who opposed based on a user's editing statistics while simultaneously citing concerns about editcountitis? What an ass. It's psychos like that who make RfA such a terrible place for candidates!  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will admit I found some irony in that one. :) 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What can I say, I aim to baffle.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks again for the Barnstar on the Iraq war article. I really appreciate it. <b style="color:green;">Publicus</b> 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)