User talk:Swadge2

Sorry da i was not means harm\

Beliuve me i was just trying to help ill stop now

Hello Swadge2, Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you have been reverting Vandalism and adding warnings manually. It is tedious and often involves a lot of work. Since you are auto confirmed, I would like to to introduce you to twinkle. It is a tool that automates everything for you. Thanks for contributions. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am POSEIDON OF GREECE. I am very sorry, but I am not having the source name currently with me. It was a library reference book and I do not remember its name. But I sure that my information is relevant because have myself read it. But still, I will try to find that book and give its name in reference. Thank you POSEIDON OF GREECE (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POSEIDON OF GREECE (talk), sounds like a plan. Good luck in finding the book. Swadge2 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am POSEIDON OF GREECE. Can it be possible to publish it without such reference problem. I am asking it as I know that the information is relevant. POSEIDON OF GREECE (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POSEIDON OF GREECE (talk), Sorry, but I think you will need a reference. I certainly don't doubt that the information is relevant, but Wikipedia must be verifiable through inline citations, as per WP:V. Again, I wish you luck in finding the reference. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing from my phone, I don't know how to add citations via mobile edits. I guess I'm gonna have to move to my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:153:801:1C70:1F2:C0DA:A469:50D1 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, about this edit: the intention was (most likely) to hijack the article. New users do that sometimes as they cannot create new pages. --bdijkstra (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bdijkstra, I thought that might be the case but wasn't entirely sure, and didn't know exactly what to do; thank you for clearing that up. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for dealing with the vandalism on Igor Dogen. You beat me to reverting it XD Damien Swann (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Swann, my pleasure. I too seem to be constantly beaten to reverting! Good luck in your future anti-vandalism endeavours. – Swadge2 (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. 2601:188:180:B8E0:202F:67D9:4B39:6338 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plz don't leave article in stub version and expand to make it full fledged.You can use window to Maoist Revolution: for that. Thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha. I consulted "Windows into a Revolution: Ethnographies of Maoism in India and Nepal" quite extensively in my edits. I think that the problem in expanding the article further is that the group do not appear to been an exceptionally influential or significant political entity, and so while relatively short, I think the article contains most of the relevant information. Swadge2 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok...but it is important in the context of state of Bihar. To which all these article are related. No worries I will expand in future after reading that book properly. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, you are quite right that the group is important, as any topic is really, and I apologise that I was a bit harsh in my previous message. Good luck in your editing. Swadge2 (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear. No need to say sorry. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Swadge2 - the reversion is to a solely negative entry written with selected articles, designed to attack, and is completely false. TIES does exist, is functioning, and has numerous positive mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert James Logan (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert James Logan. I struggle to see how the article could be "completely false", given that all of its substantive points are backed by the cited sources. Your edit deleted large amounts of information and all of the article's sources, and so was reverted. I will look into the current status of the organization as you suggest, and will consider whether the article reflects this. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Swadge2 this "edit" only began in 2020, please see many years before where this was not the case. The real article was very long and had numerous favorable sources detailing projects et. al. before this edit turned it into a two paragraph attack. There are numerous favorable sources. Please allow reversion so the original can be rebuilt. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert James Logan (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Logan, I do see that some edits in 2020 added information about the organization's financial issues, but this is well sourced as I described in my last message. I do agree that these edits perhaps over-emphasised this information, and will look at editing to correct this, but I think some mention of the incidents in 2015 is justified. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Swadge2 Perhaps, but can we revert to the original put in in 2013 and edited for 7 years before this attack? There are numerous favorable mentions, and some of the sources cited here are deliberately negative. I have a lot of work to do, but we did not know this was going on, and so are caught off guard. Thanks. Robert James Logan (talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Logan, from my examination of most of the pre-2020 revisions, they seem generally very similar to the current article, with the only significant difference being the absence of mention of the 2015 IRS incident. In my edit I would probably change it to be closer to this pre-2020 state, with some mention of the IRS issue. Also, your comment that "we did not know" seems to me to suggest you are in some way affiliated with the organisation? If so, I would direct towards Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swadge2 I am one of 15,000 members, and a volunteer. I can have numerous other parties add content as well. The user who changed it is the executive director of a competing organization. Robert James Logan (talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Logan, I see, I would still encourage you to read up on Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest, and do also see that the editor who added the IRS information had themself declared a conflict of interest, with relation to another ecotourism organization. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swadge2 Thanks, I saw your edits. I will make sure others add their voices. I can't talk to Roi, who is the executive Director of the GSTC, maybe someone else can? Robert James Logan (talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Swadge2. I had my first ever entry deleted by your goodself today. I understand it's because I didn't quote a source. I also read on Wikipedia's rules page that Wikipedia isn't the forum for new (even though what I wrote can hardly be thought of as groundbreaking) ideas, and that they have to be published first. I notice also that Wiipedia uses the word "verifiable", and I also notice on your profile page that you play guitar. Now, I'm not too happy about the fact that you deleted - it would appear not only once, but twice, what I wrote, not because I feel I'm ablove correction - by all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but I know for an absolute fact that what I wrote concerning the closesness of the melody line of ABBA's song to Quizás, quizás, quizás by Osvaldo Farrés is absolutely true. I've not even bothered Googling it to see if it's been noticed before (and if it hasn't - I fail to understand why), as I've checked both those melody lines and give or take some very subtle nuamces, they'e peas in a pod, it also amuses me how Benny and Bjorn the accredited songwriters have taken the Spanish word "Contestando" nd basically changed it to Fernando - well, that's how it appears to me anyway, but that of course could be construed as being libelous. So in terms of your deleting my very first entry I accept that as I stated that "the melody line was derived from Quizas" - or words to that effect, and I can't say that for sure, and indeed the matter would be one for a legal dispute and due to the fact that Fernando is apparentgly one of the top 40 selling singles of all time, there's clearly not unsignificant amounts of money involved here and it wouldn't be fair on Wikipedia to get sued for somethign like that. However, on my second change, I can't recall my actual words at the moment, but what I said was more or less that there is a strong similarity between the melody lines of the different songs. So, before we go any further, I know for an absolute fact that I'm correct in terms of what I've said abut the similarity between the two songs, but my query here about what I wrote havign been deleted has nothign whatsoever to do with me defending whether I feel I'm right or not. What my query refers to is the fact that I want to be able to look up Wikipedia adnd learn things like this and yes I totally agree that facts displayed should as Wikipedia states must be "verifiable." - but verifiable is very open to interpretation. I could for example create a website today quoting this fact that I've had deleted, then re-write it on your pages and cite my own web-page as the source where the fact can be "verified" - I'f this is goign to be discussion between us I'll go well into the dangers of such an approach when it is we talk,ery briefly lets taken an example that some lunatic individual wants to promulgate ideas realting to white supremacy. They get their poison verified by somebody with recognised high level qualification. Now, it's not only Mr. Lunatic who wants to spread poison, but he's now backed by Docotor or Professor whoever, and their published research papers, which are worth nothing in the real world then go on to become a pedestal where Mr. Lunatic can then promulgate his poison through websites such as yours because no matter what he says and no matter how wrong his ideas are, they can be "verified" as Wikipedia puts it, because he's quoting from a published source. But we can discuss all this, I've got the time and defitely the inclination. Returnign to the issue at hand, though - being shared melodies of two differnt songs, in terms of this being "verifiable" - this to me, is like so in your face noticeable, that my mum and I were singing Fernando over the words of Quizas, quizas when we heard it in the concert we were watching, and I honestly thought at the time that Mr. Bocelli was doing a medley of songs and singing Fernando in Spanish until I checked out the two different songs on Youtube, learned to play each of their melody lines note for note on a guitar then compared them, and found myself deeply disappointed as I really like ABBA, and now I find the chorus of this Fernando song is clearly taken form an earlier source, not necessarily Quizas, Quizas, but as I wrote on my second attempt at adding my new found insight into Wikipedia - not to show off may I add, but to share what I've learned with other people - I even stated that the source of the melody of the chorus of Fernando may even be a Cuban folk song written prior to Quizas, Quizas. How much more "verifiable" can this be? All you have to do, Swadge2, is listen to the two songs, it's so clear their similarity, you don't need any musical knowledge, you could quite literally sing the melody of one over the other. But again, it would seem that a cursory reading of Wikipedia's rule is that the keyword here is "verifiable" and how it's interpretted. I also -once more - acknowledge that Wikipedia states that its pages are not the place to publish new information- but returning to the example of Mr. Lunatic and his published Dr./ Prpfessor friend who want to promulgate their poisons, how would one go about sharing what one learns with others when what one has learned isn't a mere theory, but is 100% "verifiable" without the need for specialist equipment or whatever, ie - the casual non-skilled reader could verify the fact in question with very little effort made on their part.

Anyway, hope all's well with you, Swadge2, and please don't take my essay above personally. I think that there's a possibility that we're touching on potential weaknesss in Wikipedia's rules which could be greatly exploited by unscrupulous individials. Maybe not. We're aonly going to find out if we talk, so I look forward to reading your reply.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnyrdS (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello LynnyrdS. Thank you very much for your message. You raise a number of points, and I will attempt to address them all to the best of my abilities, though I have been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, so these abilities might not be comprehensive, however they are hopefully sufficient. Concerning the actual change you made, with the additional information you've now provided regarding how you came to recognise this similarity, I think the edit would violate WP:NOR, as what you describe seems to me to be original research. I will not address my own thoughts on any similarity between the two songs, as that seems to me to be irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is whether this edit violates Wikipedia's policies. Also, I did not actually revert your change twice, the second revert was made by a different user, MFlet1.

You also raise a number of points regarding Wikipedia policy, which I will attempt to address as best I can. I would agree with your point that verifiable could be "very open to interpretation". But fortunately, the interpretation that should be taken when reading the policy of the English Wikipedia is outlined at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I will quote the first line, which seems to me to give a clear and concise summary of the overall idea, that "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". As the information that your edit added does not come from a reliable source, it is not verifiable in the sense in which that word is used in Wikipedia policy, hence my reversion, even if the similarity may seem obvious to yourself.

The second major point relating to Wikipedia policy that I see in your message is that regarding source reliability. If you were to, as you suggest in your message, create a webpage and publish on that webpage some description of the similarity you see between the two songs, then cite this webpage as evidence for your change, this would still not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, as that webpage would not be considered a reliable source. At Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, it is described that, a personal website, such as that on which you might publish your recognition of the similarity, is not considered a reliable source. In considering the other example you raise, that of "Mr. Lunatic" and his academic associate, it seems to me that any evidence that Mr. Lunatic's associate might attempt to publish supporting the former's white supremacist ideas, would almost surely fail Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. Given that the kind of racial science that the academic might try to argue for has been long discredited, I think that he would struggle to have his research published in any reliable journal, given that it would almost surely fail peer-review. If the associate published in the kind of fringe or pay-to-publish publication that might accept such ideas, the source would still likely not meet Wikipedia's guidelines (see information at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources), especially as it would be in direct contradiction to the general scientific consensus regarding these issues. Hence, I think that it is unlikely that a plot such as this would find success.

I hope all is well with you also, and that this addresses your questions and concerns. If it doesn't, I would be very happy to try again. - Swadge2 (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Mr/Ms Swadge2,

                          thanks very much for your clear and concise reply in which you've clearly taken time to address my query. Once again, hope all's good with you. All the best and - if I may add - thanks for the work you you do keeping Wikipedia up and running. It is appreciated. Oh, and I'm aware that contributors such as yourself give their time freely, but if you'd like to make some serious cash, I strongly recommend that a good possibility of doing that would be to buy the copyright for that old Spanish song I referred to and suing Benny, Bjorn and Stig for what - to my ears anyway - sounds like a very strong case for potential sonic plagiarism. I currently don't have a shekel to my name, but when I do, if nobody's got there before me, that's where my first major pay check will be going. Ah, Benny and Bjorn, masters of the game - never thought I'd say it, but sirs - unless there's some information I'm missing here, on this occassion at least, I'm highly unimpressed, but we can all get together and play Cluedo at some future date when it will inevitably be revealed who indeed it was that killed Professor Plumb with the candlestick. Till then, gents, god hälsa och tack för musiken...
  And once again, Swadge2 - all the best and happy Wikipedia-ing. :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnyrdS (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

LynnyrdS, I am most glad to hear that my reply adequately addressed your query. In preparing my reply I gained a significantly better grasp on these areas of Wikipedia policy, which will surely help me in my future editing, so I must thank you for presenting me such an opportunity. Regarding the lawsuit you propose, I can't say that I'm exactly the legal type, nor currently possessing of the sums of money that I'd imagine are involved in obtaining such a copyright, so I might have to leave this one to you. All the best to you too, and I hope you will still, despite this similarity, be able to enjoy the music of ABBA! - Swadge2 (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bladee 333 album art.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bladee 333 album art.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's very much reliable it was my father's hounds that were used I have original photos from the set. Im able to share you a couple of the set pictures for you to look at Scanner lurcher gypsy lurcher and lady wolfhound all the dogs are known as hounds not dogs and are medieval mixed bred for hunting Irish and British mixed this is my email address if you would like me to show you set photo's Speck0676 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Speck0676, thanks for your comment. The reason I reverted your change is that you didn't cite a reliable source in support of it. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, meaning that a reader can verify any claim made in an article by referring to published sources that directly support that claim. In this case, that means that the information you added about the dogs needs to be supported by a published reliable source that directly says what kind of dogs were used in the series and who bred them—a book or article about the show, for example. The set pictures you mention do not meet this threshold, as they are not a published reliable source by the definition used on Wikipedia. If there isn't another source supporting the information you added, it is unfortunately not eligible for inclusion in the article. Please do let me know if you have any further questions. All best, Swadge2 (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a warning template to the talk pages of vandals. See wp:RCP for info. If proper warning ediquite is followed, a problem editor may be blocked by an administrator. If they don't get warned, they probably won't get blocked. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adakiko, is it possible that you have mistaken me for another editor? The only vandal I have recently reverted on a Masked Singer page was this IP editor, whom I gave a talk page warning. I do try to be very consistent with warnings, because it's the only way for repeat offenders to be identified and blocked like you say. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]