User talk:Swarm/Archive 8

adoption???
hello, im new to wikipedia. i have had some help with my editing so far, and could use some more. Any chance?? Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Jasper Deng (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support
Thank you for your kind words and support during my RfA, Swarm. It meant a great deal coming from an experienced editor such as yourself. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RFA
I replied back to your comment in my RFA, I been ignoring it for the most part, and not caring, but I felt I had to reply here in a proper fashion. Thanks Secret account 04:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help Request
Hi Swarm. I got your name on the Adopters page. I'm a new editor and you offered to help in any way at all. That's why I'm contacting you. I signed up with Wikipedia because a particular page (titled "BDSM") has some inaccurate, original research information on it related to the etymology of the term. I would like to replace those inaccuracies with sourced, verifiable information.

I began by reading up on Wikipedia editing procedure. Next, I marked original research passages as citation needed and opened a discussion on the BDSM Talk page titled "Etymology". There, I have been in discussions about editing the Etymology references and section on the BDSM page. Two other editors have joined in that discussion. It seems to be a difficult process to develop a consensus. The folk etymology is well seated in the minds of some people. Even though I have found dictionary references that correct the folk etymology it seems difficult for some people to accept that.

I have made some progress, however. One editor agreed that the existing passages are in need of citation. There has been agreement on some points. But a full and complete consensus seems to elude me.

I know that the Verifiability page suggests removing unsourced material quickly and immediately but I do not want to start a flame war or appear to be overstepping. By contrast, I noticed today that some people have removed the citation needed tags from some of the passages in need of citation, even though we have a discussion going on the Talk page. So, other people do not seem to be as sensitive to creating a consensus or to replacing original research with verifiable citation as I am. Some of those people - from their pages, it seems like the only thing they have ever done (and/or one of the few things they have done) is remove the citation needed tags I placed on some of the original research passages.

Of course, I could revert them and restore the citation needed tags, but is that a good thing to do at this point? Not achieving a perfect consensus, do I allow original research to stand or do I replace it even though there is not a consensus?

Your guidance will be very much appreciated. :) SailinStuff (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi SailinStuff, I'm not a quarter as good in such things as Swarm, but if you like, I can offer help or give an external opinion on that discussion. However, maybe you could summarize the current state of consensus and the open questions (best on a sub-page of that talk page, not here), because it has grown terribly large o.0. I've dropped a note on your talk page, like some others, too - have a look! Se&#39;taan (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Swarm: Sorry for abusing your talk page as a message board, I'm just not sure how to otherwise reach SailinStuff. Se&#39;taan (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Earlier Adoption Offer
Hi Swarm,

some time ago, you were so nice to offer to adopt me (well, it's roughly... 2 years ago o.0°). First of all, thanks for that, and sorry for not replying. I was something of a Wiki-... Undead, still on the wiki, but not alive, if you know what I mean.

I'm trying to get back to editing and would mainly need someone to point me to relevant guidelines / tutorials / help pages when I don't know where to start looking for them (or, how they might even be called). I'm not on a deadline, laid-back answering approach would be just fine :-)

I'm not sure if you have the time, but if so (and also if not, of course ;-) ), a reply anywhere is appreciated very much! Se&#39;taan (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

Notice of WP:AN discussion
Hello Swarm, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN. Appreciate your input, thanks! 18:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship
Hey there Swarm! I was wondering if you are still open to being a mentor. Found your name listed on the list and thought I'd ask. -- Syed Kazim ''' ( Talk 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship
Hey there Swarm! I was wondering if you are still open to being a mentor. Found your name listed on the list and thought I'd ask. -- Syed Kazim ''' ( Talk 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Comment requested
Hi Swarm. As a former contributor to this, you  may  wish  to  take a look  at  this. If you do, please read it  carefully  in  order not  to  miss the explicit  objective. Comments on its talk  page. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Chagos Islands national football team for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chagos Islands national football team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chagos Islands national football team (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

This is an article previously delete at AFD (twice) that you restored so giving you a courtesy notice that I have taken it back there. GiantSnowman 09:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A question
How am I supposed to contribute when my edits are deleted and if I revert those deletions I get blocked? As I have explained, the users opposing my edits insist on 100% deletion even though they generally refuse to make any specific comments on what they do not like. They generally only respond haphazardly at all and have by and large simply ignored any effort I make to compromise.

CJK (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not true. My replies to CJK have been very detailed and specific. Until today, I have only reverted monolithic edits which replaced the views with which CJK disagrees with those he wants to have included. I have spent hours trying to work on compromise proposals which add his favored views to the article without deleting those he dislikes. EllenCT (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK on Iraq war
Hi Swarm, you blocked CJK for edit warring on Iraq war for a day earlier in the week, and since his return, in my opinion he has been much worse, making outright misleading statements on the talkpage and replacing lengthy sections with a few sentences citing only the single source supporting the very minority viewpoint he agrees with. He continues to fight against the consensus of all the other editors on the article, at least five or seven editors now. I don't want to see him blocked again, but I've repeatedly asked that he seek some kind of dispute resolution procedure which can help him create better compromise texts. At one point he was getting pretty close to some compromise proposals with which I almost agreed, but it wasn't enough for him so he started accusing me of having no support for my opinions, and started claiming that not responding to him after a few days signals agreement with him.

Is there any way you can give him a choice between further sanction and participating in a collaborative dispute resolution procedure aimed at working on mutually agreeable compromises which include his views without deleting the views he disagrees with? I've never used the dispute noticeboard or looked closely at anything much more than third opinion requests, and this is way beyond that now, so I really don't know what to do. Thanks for any help you can provide. EllenCT (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential Adoptee
Hi, I've recently registered and there's a lot I don't know. I'm not likely to create many articles, but have been trying to do the minor edits suggested. They're mostly on subjects of which I know little (though my general knowledge is pretty good if I may say so) but I'm sometimes unsure what's best to do. I've also built up a file of questions which a WP expert could probably answer in seconds, and imagine I'll generate more. I'm familiar with HTML syntax though no expert, and unfortunately don't have easy access to a good reference library to check secondary sources.

Would you be willing to adopt me? I'm a quick learner and hopefully won't be too much of a burden. Chrismorey (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 03:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

question on changing account name
Hi Swarm, One of the admins said they don't like my account name. Now that I have a little experience with Wikipedia, I get that this account name sounds sort of sanctimonious in debates. WP:Account says "User accounts with few or no edits might not be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply create a new account." How do I determine if I have few enough edits to create a new account? If I create a new account, is there anything I need to do (besides never accessing the old account) to avoid any appearance of sockpuppeting? Thanks for any info -Truthwillneverdie (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can change your username at Changing username/Simple. That quote's meant to imply that you can just create a new account if your old one is unused. Since you have nearly 200 edits and are active, it doesn't really apply and I think they'd certainly rename your account. Alternatively, you absolutely have the option to abandon this account and start with a new one (you can learn the proper way to do this at Clean start). As long as you use only one account in good faith, you should never have to worry about the 'appearance' of socking.  Swarm  X 18:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Memories; worth remembrance!
Greetings Swarm. Once again I have recalled a memory, reminding me that I have missed earlier times when I had the good fortune of seeing your editing activity regularly; and often. Nevertheless, with each tomorrow I am blessed to enjoy, of certainty it will culminate as a day closer to the one when I will remember my friend and colleague, Swarm; and will, on that day, pay homage to your talk page to remind you of my debt which remains! The gift of things remembered continues to empower my endurance and my ability to sustain; even prevail. I hope my greetings reach you in the midst of a joyous occasion; finding you prosperous and well. And I look forward to the future when I will remember you again; and say thanks. With esteem.—John Cline (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

March GOCE copyedit drive
{| style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5"


 * Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors



The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

– Your drive coordinators:, and To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)|}

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Relativity media logo 2010.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Relativity media logo 2010.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Swarm

Can you please help me with a Revision Deletion? I may have gotten carried away with my comments and it was scene by a coworker. Any help would be greatly appreciated I am referring to the 3 times I made an EDIT SUMMARY on this page regarding our real names and safety concerns. Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Duran_and_the_Morning_Show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.23.146 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive my typo in my last post where I typed SCENE instead of seen.

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GOCE February blitz wrapup
--Bigdisneyfanatic (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC) I am looking to be adopted and learn about editing on wikipedia.

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi I came across your page as you are requesting adoptees?
Hi, my name is Daniel Ward and I live in Huddersfield, England. I am interested in and consider myself fairly knowledgeable in world geography, sports, chess and music. I would like to create new pages and add pictures to articles without them, especially geographical ones as I notice there are many European and world places, rivers and mountains for instance that only have stub articles or don't have articles in the English Wikipedia at all but do have pages in other languages. I am not too tech savvy so you may have to be patient with me. Would you be able to help me get started?

Thank you, Danny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddsblue (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
—Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 11:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 Wikification drive
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

fyi
The John Daley sockpuppet is back Saturn star (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you're talking about...can you explain a bit more? What do you need from me?  Swarm  X 23:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They seem to be a pretty active sockpuppeter and its not the first time they have edited like this and they also put a false ban template on my userpage I just wanted the admins of the site to know hope you don't mind Saturn star (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops spelled the name wrong I meant John Daker they are also putting false compromised account things on my userpage Saturn star (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the account and tagged it as a sockpuppet of John Daker. Let me know if you encounter any more trouble!  Swarm  X 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Random question...
Hello, Swarm! Random question here: are non-Admins allowed to do non-Admin "closes" (e.g. Archive top, etc.) of threads at noticeboards like WP:ANI, or are only Admins allowed to do that? If regular editors are allowed to "close", under what circumstances would a non-Admin "close" of a topic be considered "OK"? I only ask, because I saw a couple of topics on WP:ANI yesterday that looked like they had resolved, but they never ended up getting "closed", so I wondered if regular editors were allowed to do "closes" in situations like that... Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey there. To put it simply, yes, non-admin closure is allowed if it's for an uncontroversial or procedural reason. For example, if a discussion is obviously resolved, a non-admin can indeed 'archive' it and write the resolution in there. It's no problem. Another example in which it's okay would be deletion discussions with an obvious 'keep' consensus that have passed their deadline for closure, but remain open. As long as it's done properly, a non-admin can perform such a closure. Non-admin closures can be reviewed and overturned by any admin, but as long as they're done "correctly", they're pretty much always tolerated. You can read the actual "rule" on this at WP:NACD. A good essay that expands on this practice and is basically generally accepted as a guideline is WP:NAC. But yeah, I used to perform non-admin closes all the time before I became a non-admin, stayed within the bounds of what that essay described and never had any complications or challenges. Let me know if you have any other questions!  Swarm  X 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for responding. I've given my first couple of non-Admin closings at WP:ANI a try! Now that I know it's OK to do these (in certain circumstances), I'll be on the lookout for resolved threads in need of closing next time I'm at someplace like WP:ANI... :)  --IJBall (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! :)  Swarm  X 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI
Since the thread was locked before I could make a response, there are a few things I think need to be cleared up. I mistaked their edits for Original Research, and didn't realise my error untill the ANI report was filed. And I've always been one who focuses more on the actions rather than the motivation. I never realized my mistake untill it was too late, and I apologize for that. I shoud've talked about assuming good faith on their talk page, but I got too used to ANI that I made the wrong decision. I apologize for my immature behavior. Weegeerunner (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing, seeing as you are on this list, may I request a 2 week block on my account? Weegeerunner (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, and no worries! I totally understand, mistakes happen, I've certainly done the same thing before. Sorry if I came off as harsh, I know you only had good intentions. And sure, I will block your account for two weeks as requested. Remember to use unblock if you need the block lifted before it expires! Best regards,  Swarm  X 01:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense blanking in talk page:Smukkrukkjujj
It has been apparent that Smukkrukkjujj has been blanking his own talk page to replace the block template with blatant nonsense characters. He has been blocked for creating nonsense pages (i.e., blocked for abuse of editing privileges), but he just conceals the block template and he probably harassed me on his own talk page by dropping the F-Bomb twice on one of his nonsense edits on his talk page. Would it be possible to change the block into a hard block or just modify its level so he wouldn't be able to edit his talk page while he is blocked? Thank you. Snowager -Talk  01:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I just noticed that and revoked his talk page access, so he won't be causing any more disruption. :) Thanks.  Swarm  X 01:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Maureen O'Connor change
thanks for adding the line about dismissal of charges against Maureen O'Connor. I've found one published (internet/tv) source for that info, and have added that as a reference. There are a number of inaccuracies (slight) remaining in the existing page, which I'll try to get to as time permits. Theoldgringo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

vandalism of Edinburgh Academy
I just posted a RPP with twinkle requesting the page be protected. The entire 50 most recent edits were all vandalism or reporting vandalism. Most of the edits were made by new accounts, after an IP address was blocked for vandalizing the page. Not sure how to go about CheckUser requests, but it seems fishy. <font color="#0000FF">@ND <font color="#FF00FF">Killa <font color="#0000FF">^^^ 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe also Merchiston Castle School? &mdash;George8211 / T 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both pages semi-protected for one month. Hopefully that'll be enough! Thanks guys. :)  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Thanks for lowering the protection level as I requested. I have finished updating (completed all fields of the Infobox). Please raise the level back to full, for some time at least, until emotions cool down. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Electoral Reform
Hi Swarm, I noticed you closed some of the very old TfDs of november 29. Thank you for that. One of them was the infobox electoral reform, used on Electoral reform in Virginia. After closing the discussion, the page now has a deleted infobox on it. What is the suggested action for that page? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Swarm. Please restore this template; it probably shouldn't be deleted before it's been "prosified". Alakzi (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A response wouldn't go amiss. Are you going to restore it or not? Alakzi (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 days have now passed. If you're not gonna make time to respond to queries that concern your administrative actions, you should consider not taking said administrative actions. Alakzi (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies&mdash;you're right. I've been distracted with other things and never replied. Also I misunderstood your statement and wasn't really sure what you were talking about. Originally I figured if no one was willing there's no point in leaving the discussion open indefinitely. But since I assume this means you're willing to do the work I'll restore it. If no one does it it's going to be deleted again.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess you don't stop by TFD often; it's not unusual for a discussion to be closed but the template not immediately deleted. Bask in the glory of our pen. Anyway, I'll leave you a note when I'm done with this one. Alakzi (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! Alakzi (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Quotation
Please explain your reasons for closing Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29 as "no consensus". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's a legitimate case made there for merging to the new code, which wasn't available at the beginning of the discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was left open for long period and no clear consensus had developed on what action should be taken, and it didn't appear as if that was going to change even if it were left open for another month. I agree that there's a reasonable case for merging and keep in mind it's not a bureaucracy. You're perfectly welcome to be bold and perform the merge yourself and see how it goes. You're a template editor.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please revise your closing remark to that effect. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon continues editwar
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Busan_Metro_Line_1&diff=prev&oldid=649197550

Your criticism failed, CG. What's more, I have well explained on both your talk page and the criticism page of why your image was a degradation. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. I give him a break because of his "good faith" self-reversion and he literally continued the edit war immediately after. Thanks for the notification.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Sorry it was necessary. :-( -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree completely, let me know if it continues.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, I'm not thrilled with this outcome either. I don't have anything against HanSangYoon, I just want them to discuss changes and accept community consensus. I was actually quite hopeful that the reversion meant they'd understood edit-warring wasn't on and would discuss the addition. ColonialGrid (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9
Since you were the blocking admin, once Uniquark9's block was over he immediately reverted the edits by User:Rajmaan which consisted of 3 different articles. All these reverts removed references and referenced information and all had edit summaries stating, "Restoring to a version before Rajmaan's edits". Clearly an attempt to make the issue personal. Just thought I would let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching this and letting me know! I think another block is in order since the first one obviously didn't get through to him.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for following up on this. But to correct the record, he was blocked for the first time in December for edit warring and employing a sock in an edit war.  He frequently blanks his talk page to hide the steady stream of notices, warnings, and complaints that he has amassed in the past few months.  An incident report was pursued a couple of weeks ago with no resolution.  His pattern of disruption (and possible sock puppetry) are described further there, with several editors contributing. I bring this up not to pile on, but it is important that the full extent of his behavior is understood.  I and other editors have repeatedly tried to get Uniquark9 to recognize and adhere to WP guidelines, but this mass reversion is a typical response. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well damn. I didn't know all that! Thanks Laszlo! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Self blocks
As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Block on demand page, along with comments and a link to your requirements page, if any. I hope I did not err in sort of reviving that page. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock review conflict
Hi,

It appears that we've conflicted on the 80.X IP block. As the block was only for the legal threat, I planned on unblocking it with a word of caution. My original unlock message is as follows:

With the legal threat retracted, I've unblocked you. A few words of caution, please be careful with how you conduct yourself on Wikipedia. If you do so in a disruptive manner, you may face another block. Any additional legal threats will result in the block being reinstated, no matter the account or IP.

If you wish to re-block it, I don't have a strong opinion here. Best, <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha! I saw that and was just about to tell you on your talk page. I really don't have a strong opinion here either but you unblocked the IP at exactly the same time I updated the block log after declining the unblock request. It was not an intentional reversion of your unblock. I shall cede to your judgment. Willing to give anyone another chance.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 00:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hello. Do you mind taking a look at this? I don't feel like explains in great detail despite it already being done on the article itself. I would prefer to sleep. AcidSnow (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry, just now got around to it.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  17:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry and thank you! AcidSnow (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User accusing me of being a sock puppet of HGA
Hi, It appears that user talk:64.134.157.208 has accused me of being the "sock puppet" of user talk:Hga, which is not the case. I have asked him to cease but he has now spread this to the discussion page for the AfD for Hoplophobia. He is falsely accusing me of this activity and trying to sway opinion on the discussion page. I removed the accusation from the AfD page and he has put it back. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?99.242.102.111 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears IP 99 is canvassing here. Hga and 99 are both including material from fringe blogs which in no way meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and they were recently warned of that and they deleted the warnings and reinserted the crappy sources and material. Hga has been editing (owning) the article for years. They have had plenty of time to find reliable sources and clearly have not done that so their terribly sourced material should be deleted IAW policy. They should find a source that meets the reliable source guidelines before reinserting material about a person who died in the last 10 years. Hga appear to be asking for a check user on the ANI. It would be very helpful but in no way give them the right to keep putting crap in articles. Thanks 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the crap they both keep adding. Not something that is even remotely acceptable. They have demonstrated long term tendentious edit warring in the articles history. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, here's something I can speak definitively about, the edit reference to an issue of Cooper's Commentaries where he reiterated his rules of gun safety, life and death important since they are generally considered to be the best. However people were modifying them, and after some searching I realized those who weren't "improving" them were using corrupt texts.  So I found the most recent direct quote of Coopers, put that text in there, and made a link to the DVC site (if I remember correctly), one of the many sub rosa copies of the Commentaries on the net.  That citation seems to have been changed into two different onee, but, as I've said on the talk page and the ANI section, I have the authorized paper copies of Commentaries on order, and I will in due course be updating all references to the Commentaries to these 3 bound volumes. Hga (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI regarding Joseph Prasad
Just so you know, blocked editor User:Joseph Prasad is trying to recruit at least one other editor to proxy/meatpuppet for him at the Seth MacFarlane talk page discussion where he was edit warring (see here: ). I tried to explain to him (firmly) that such a practice is verboten, and add some advice regarding his block (see all the comments from me and him here ), but he wouldn't hear of it and deleted the comments as "harassing". Maybe you will see a need to let him know that such behavior (recruiting meat puppets) is against policy? Thanks,-- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Fibrowarrior
Regardless of the merits of the unblock request and your accept, courtesy and policy "require" that you check with the blocking administrator before accepting the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry. Accepting unblock requests isn't something I commonly do. I've brushed up on the unblocking policy and will be sure to remember this in the future. Thanks for the reminder, it only helps me improve!  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  01:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! . . .and question
Hello Swarm,

Thank you for your prompt response to the issue which I posted on the Edit Warring Noticeboard regarding the Glengarry Glen Ross (film) page. //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

That was my first time on an administrator noticeboard and I had no idea what might happen.

I hate to bother you with a question: I see that User:LawrencePrincipe has been blocked. Would it be appropriate for me to now restore the material that he was deleting? Or must I leave it alone?

Thank you again, Xanthis (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw your edit just now, which makes my question moot. Thanks again.  Xanthis (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Xanthis, thanks for bringing the issue to our attention. And don't even worry about bothering me, it's our job to help out other people! It's good you asked instead of simply reverting again; the removal was inappropriate so yeah I've gone ahead and restored the content as it's being discussed still. But it's generally best practice to revert as little as possible, and never to break wp:3rr. Even if you're "right" in a dispute! You did the right thing by reporting your issue.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  07:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RPP
As a follow up from the recent 3RR block you performed letting you know I have requested page protection at the article Drake Discography (see here: ). The RPP was requested prior to the block of those two editors. Additionally, another editor whose edit warring block will expire shortly was also edit warring at that same article before his block. There is a current content dispute there that has not been addressed at the article's talk page. Based on this I think it's entirely possible the editor to be unblocked shortly might take advantage of the other two editors being blocked from editing. The RPP is purely preventative and I think that even though the other two are now blocked from editing, there will still be problems there. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommended to the third editor that they refrain from editing while the other two are blocked to precisely avoid this impression. I've also recommended to Joseph Prasad that they start a discussion thread on the article talk page after the expiration of the other two blocks. Requesting preemptive page protection on the assumption that they will take advantage of the block is an assumption of bad faith and the request should be rejected. Blackmane (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad faith only as a result of his recent behavior with inviting meatpuppetry, edit warring and not believing he was edit warring, his refusal to look at his behavior and having a plan to improve, his willingness to immediately jump into the fray as savior of the Wiki as soon as his block is up. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 04:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've declined that request because pages are not protected preemptively. The user is welcome to edit as a productive Wikipedian once their block expires, and has agreed to stay away from the page in question and per WP:AGF we should take their word on that. They don't want to get blocked again and seem to realize that they will be if they return to their old behavior, and if that happens we can deal with it then.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  06:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, I recommend that you disengage from Joseph Prasad and let him be about his business. If they edit war again they'll be blocked again, if not then fine. Going over past history is as useful as chewing over mouthfuls of old soup. Blackmane (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Recommend all you like,, he's going to mess up again, just like he did before, because he is not listening to what experienced editors and administrators are telling him. In fact, after promising to stay away from the Drake Discography article for a while, he's back there (and at the Drake (rapper) article) again today , .  And he never started a talk page discussion as he promised he would do, either. .  So much for "let[ting] him be about his business".  He's testing the waters to see how much he can get away with, just like all the other times when he would edit war and was allowed to continue unfettered.  Obviously, he has NOT learned anything and his word is not to be trusted.  He's playing us.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  21:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , if he does, then he does and he'll be blocked for it. Blocks are cheap. People, including myself, have been offering advice in good faith. It's up to him whether he takes that on board and moves forward with it. If he doesn't then all it cost was few minutes of time and a some keystrokes. There's little point getting worked up or poking the bear about it. Blackmane (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I said I would stay away from the articles on the argument of studio album vs. mixtape. Nothing else. I was updating chart positions, and there is no reason to make the discussion until the other two are unblocked. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That isn't the impression you left with any of us. But I think you already knew that. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , if you actually looked on my talk page, it's exactly what I said. Wait until the expiration of the block. The studio vs. mixtape problem, I'll go back to once they are unblocked to discuss on the talk. There is nothing wrong with correcting a typo and updating a chart position. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that's not the impression you left with the three of us (Swarm,, and myself). Hence, Swarm's comments above - which I'm certain you saw hours ago, yet did not correct - "has agreed to stay away from the page in question and per WP:AGF we should take their word on that".  What's more, you didn't say you would go back after their block, you said you said you would be going to the article talk page and starting a discussion: "I'm not going to edit the article in the matter of mixtape vs. album. I will create a discussion at the talk page and invite them." (link to diff here )  That meant (at least to me, and I bet the other two as well) that you would be doing it as soon as your block was up.  But this is all just a bunch of "you said..."; "no, I didn't" baloney at this point.  I, for one, don't buy your explanations and believe you've taken advantage of AGF and trust.  Personally, I'm done supporting and trying to help you out.  The others can go on doing that, but I'm finished. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , how are you trying to help me out? It seems like you just feel the need to complain to other editors. And, I took 's recommendation: " I've also recommended to Joseph Prasad that they start a discussion thread on the article talk page after the expiration of the other two blocks." Why would I start a dicussion when the editors who are arguing can't discuss? It would be for naught. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How the hell do I know why you would do it? The fact is you said you would do it, another fact is you allowed three veteran, experienced editors to believe you were going to leave that article alone.  One was a complete lie the other was a lie by omission.  In my book, that means you can't be trusted. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no,, I only made you believe, because the quote you gave says: "I'm not going to edit the article in the matter of mixtape vs. album. I will create a discussion at the talk page and invite them." I believed that that was pretty obvious that I was leaving the article alone. Again, there is no reason to start a discussion no one will comment on for another two days. I have not done anything wrong, you are just accusing me of being untrustworthy when I have done well with others in the past. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but no -- that's not the case. Swarm thought so (what is it about "The user...has agreed to stay away from the page in question"' is eluding you?); I bet Blackmane thought so, as well (although I could be wrong, but even so, that's two out of three).  You think you haven't done anything wrong -- well, that's no big surprise, you never think you do anything wrong, it's always the other guy (remember when I said "act like a child and you will be treated like a child"? -- well, guess what? by blaming someone else you're acting like a child again).  And I'm not "accusing" you of not being trustworthy; recently, you've absolutely proven time and again you are not worthy of my trust. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually,, no on Blackmane, for the fact that he italicized "after" in his wording, which means he clearly meant after the blocks. And again, there is no point in making a discussion at the moment. And, you weren't acting like a child when you kept commenting on my age, and other things? I have not seen you once on another editor like this, yet you claim it's not personal, it's pretty clear it is. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Taylor Swift
Can you take part in a discussion on Taylor Swift's talk page under the heading "Image"? Thank you in advance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanations.
I was merely reverting as concensus was making it clear that until the WWE announced it on the official website that Daniel Bryan wasn't in the match. Furthermore when I was insulting the editor that started after on the first revert I said "Hell No" regarding the adding of Daniel Bryan in the event before official announcements. Then of course he later said I had power (I am not an Admin and I've never sent an RfA.), Resulting in me saying that the wrestlers were smarter than him. (Infact all my mockings were based on John Cena quotes from his "I Quit" Match at Over the Limit (2011)). Then I tried to communicate with him to resolve matters resulting in him calling me annoying, a dumbass and to not contact him there. That is my explanation for my edits. Thanks! The GRVO fLigh tning (talk)	 03:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User abusing rollback privileges
Hello, I noticed you recently granted rollback privileges to User:ToonLucas22. He/she violated the rule "Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits." at, leaving this comment incorrectly stating that I had removed content without stating why, when in fact, I left a detailed edit summary  explaining why trivial nonnotable traffic incidents do not belong in a BLP. Dngmnglr (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was using STiki at that time, and I forgot to view the edit summary. Sorry for that. --<b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, mistakes happen. Dngmnglr (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)User abusing rollback privileges[edit]

Another discussion with Chealer
Hello! Regarding the account blocking discussion that recently took place in, I'd just like to let you know there's a past discussion with Chealer that you might want to have a look at:. To me, that was a pointless and really painful debate, which back at the time I've characterized as "bordering with trolling". &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Happy to oblige, you seem like a pretty cool guy. :)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  17:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC
Kindly note the repeated insertion of BLP violations at Project for the New American Century

et seq et seq (new editor "Dbdb" suddenly appearing making same edits as Ubikwit in the past) (many edits includingBLP violations following) third Ubikwit revert within less than 24 hours.

''In describing the Bush's primary advisors, including prominent PNAC members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Armitage, scholar Guy Roberts has noted that Colin Powell was the only to have military experience, and presents a passage in which PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan attempts to differentiate between the policy positions of Powell and those of the neoconservatives in which Kagan characterizes Powell's approach as ruling out "almost every conceivable post-Cold War intervention". ''

''Some scholars have drawn attention to the influence of Albert Wohlstetter on the intellectual origins of PNAC. Alastair Finlan indicates that Wolfowitz had been a graduate student of Wohlstetter's, and states"Wolfowitz along with other former proteges of Wohlstetter such as Richard Perle, for instance, would create a lobby group called 'The New American Century' (PNAC), which espoused a neoconservative vision of the future."''

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world.'" 

Sources which are not on point for PNAC, or which specifically violate BLP do not belong in the article - and I am exceedingly disappointed that I am now unable to actually remove the damn accusations of living persons being "draft dodgers" from an article.

I suggest you read the reverts and insertion of BLP violations and material which is not directly related to PNAC but SYNTH connections of "the source says this about this person as an individual, so we can extend the argument to all of PNAC" etc. And note that the consensus on the article talk page was against such inclusion - especially since sources did not link PNAC as a group to having draft-dodgers be key players. Cheers. and try to do the right thing please! Collect (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit has also posted at Talk:Dick Cheney iterating the criminal charge of draft-dodger, etc. and is specifically adding BLP violations on the PNAC article -- including such violations as saying specific people "studied under" the same person - which is blatant OR and SYNTH on his part, etc. He has a standing warning from for his editing on BLPs and I suggest that instead of yelling at me for edit war where my edit summaries clearly noted the applicability of WP:BLP that you note Ubikwit's blatant and continued violations of policy. and   more than adequately show his disdain for the policy on the Dick Cheney article. And his use of WP:CRYBLP as his excuse for such violations is wearing thin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

He has now posted that I can not remove BLP violations of all damn things!


 *  You know that you are supposed to raise BLP claims at the BLP board after deleting text on the basis of a claimed violation of BLP. You need to start following that directive and stop making unilateral pronouncements on such matters.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is about as absurd as Kafka might wish. Read my post at WP:BLP/N. Saying that a person is a "draft-dodger" is a criminal charge. Sourcing it to a publication of AK Press does not work as that is not a "reliable source" under WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Here I added references-tags to Collects's quotation, so they don't get adopted by another post on this page. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear <small style="font-size:85%;">trigger warnings 11:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration
I mentioned you.

Dear0Dear 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Chealer's comments on archived AN3
I'd like to bring your attention to these edits: first edit, I reverted, and then Chealer restored.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chealer clearly has a fundamental incapacity to be honest with himself or to recognize wrongdoing, I suspect he's just one of those people who needs to argue for the sake of argument. He apparently thinks he's perfect and that the block against him could only be the result of some perceived corruption, despite the fact that it was only imposed after he continued his behavior after being reported. It's an extreme case of irrationality the likes of which I've never witnessed before and at this point I'm not sure how to handle it. Yes, it's inappropriate to insert comments into an archived discussion, but all I can say is leave it, if he needs to have the last word so badly, whatever. I assure you the next time Chealer's behavior comes under administrator scrutiny, this whole episode will speak for itself, as he's clearly the only one who thinks there's nothing wrong here. Just try to move on, if issues with Chealer's behavior continue you're welcome to bring it to my/our attention again, either way I'll be happy to weigh in on the matter. In my experience though people will only get away with this sort of behavior for so long, he'll either have learned his lesson (despite not admitting to it) or he'll continue in the same manner and find himself in a worse situation.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion you've offered plenty of rationale for the block at User talk:Chealer. If Chealer is still unconvinced by your explanation he should take his disagreement elsewhere. I warned him per the result of a previous 3RR case in 2012 but he professed not to understand the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From my own experience, I can only confirm that Chealer simply doesn't want to play nicely and tends to argue just for the sake of what seems to be his/her arguing focal point at the time; please see above. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw this discussion, after I reverted 's reversion of 's revert at the 3RRN archive. I find inserting comments in archives, where editors cannot reply to them, because they are, umm, archives, to be really disruptive. By the way I fully agree with Swarm's lengthy and patient explanations to Chealer, although they were apparently a WP:WASTEOFTIME, given the attitude of the editor. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked, a 3RRN regular, to look into this case. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the comments. I'll leave the archive edits be, but I am following the pages Chealer often edits and will be keeping an eye on them. I've lost good faith in this user.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The only thing I've done is left a clear warning on Chealer's Talk page that if they edit the archive again, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that Bbb, and good to see you! And thanks to the rest of you guys for weighing in, I definitely agree, and needed to hear another voice of sanity after all that. Not that I'm surprised, but it's become clear that this user has more of a history than I was even aware of when I imposed the block. In hindsight, I'm concerned it may have been too lenient considering the greater behavioral issues at play (they clearly remain unresolved). Then again, that's fine, just keep an eye out and we can revisit the issue if and when we need to.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  19:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. My thanks also go to Swarm for persevering in his valid explanations for his block to the user, despite the obstacles. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  20:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Heck, look at ... It reminds me to those numerous illogical "I see nothing wrong there" / "can you explain why" / "your reasoning is wrong" responses I've seen from Chealer. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bizarre.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, a thousand times thank you! I greatly appreciate your help Swarm! AcidSnow (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, figured I'd just make it easy on everyone. :) I commented on the AN3 report as well.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It wasn't intended to be at ANI but at the Edit War page. I think I wanted to say something else but I don't remember. AcidSnow (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Revdel please
I saw you were active today at ANI, so I am coming to you with a request for revdel including edit summary. Thank you in advance! Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, and no problem! Thanks for bringing it up!  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  21:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)