User talk:Swatjester

Φ

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues the Arab–Israeli conflict the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups the Balkans or Eastern Europe post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Query

Hi, Swatjester. Just wondering, what makes this edit vandalism? [1] I've had a look at the source; my Portuguese may not be the best but the source says Durante a ditadura do Estado Novo, entre 1937 e 1945, Getúlio Vargas gostava de utilizar em discursos a expressão "celeiro do mundo" para traduzir a idéia de que o Brasil estava destinado a se transformar num gigante dos negócios do campo, which looks like it translate to something like "During the dictatorship of the New State, between 1937 and 1945, Getúlio Vargas liked to use the 'discursos a expressão' (think that's "phrase") "breadbasket of the world" to translate (? promote?) the idea that Brazil was destined to transform into a giant of the rural (agricultural/farming?) business". That doesn't support the idea that Brazil's success in agriculture led to the adoption of the phrase, rather the phrase spoke to an aspiration. And, of course, had actually been adopted before Brazil's success. And, of course, the source doesn't even say "Brazil, breadbasket of the world". Just "breadbasket of the world". Similarly, the article body supports that fact that soybean meal, soybean oil, and cassava are major exports for Brazil, and they are some of the world's leading exporters of them. Not sure how adding them to the infobox or the statement describing what Brazil leads the world in exports of is vandalism? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 09:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unexplained blanking of sourced content, by an account with a months-long string of warnings for edit warring and sourcing issues. If the user had a nuanced interpretation of the translation of Vargas's statement, they provided no indication whatsoever of it. My Portuguese knowledge is limited -- but I do see that the quote references "breadbasket of the world" in a way that is close enough that the appropriate action would have been to correct any errors, not simply blank the content. (The portion about cassava etc. is collateral damage, not vandalism but should have been sourced even in the inbox and thus I lumped it into the same revert) This user was on the drama boards less than 2 weeks ago for edit warring; who has been warned about sourcing issues multiple times recently in September, again a couple of months prior -- the assumption of good faith in editing is not a suicide pact, and at this point they've had enough warnings for me to conclude that further unexplained blankings are intentional. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fear my point got lost - I wasn't arguing that unexplained blanking of apparently sourced content (but as it turns out, not really that sourced) is good, just that it's hardly vandalism, is it?

I'm back again though - I'm assuming you've got my pings, so I'm wondering why you chose to block another editor and revert their most recent edits where, as far as I can tell, they removed incorrect BLP information[2], they added a birthday which was already sourced in the infobox?[3] You also reverted back in claims that Biague Na Ntan and Dinis Incanha still hold positions of power in FARP[4] when, as far as I can tell, that's not been true since the former's arrest and the latter's coup?[5] I get that removing maininence templates isn't great, but (at least, for me), it's far less problematic that reverting back in incorrect information about BLPs. I'm also worried about the fact that you blocked them for vandalism - which is defined as intentional disruption. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to the user that I blocked You were warned multiple times -- dating back since at least April of this year, and as recently as twice since this morning -- to stop removing maintenance tags from articles if you have not done the work to address the issue those tags refer to. You are expected to listen to, and abide by the warnings you're given, and to communicate with other editors. What you're chalking up as "isn't great" is more accurately described as a sustained campaign of removing maintenance templates over 6+ months *after* being warned a half-dozen times, including as recently as that very day. Either the editor in question is intentionally vandalizing pages to remove maintenance templates, or they're displaying a completely unacceptable lack of communication to the degree that it's indistinguishable from intentional vandalism. So I blocked them, and reverted what appeared to be unsourced edits on a BLP -- perhaps one of them was "already sourced in the infobox" but that's not immediately apparent from the diff -- looking at the diff I do not see Pereira mentioned anywhere in the infobox whatseover and Ctrl+F for "Pereira" is not showing me any instances with a sourced birthdate. So if I missed that, it's accidental, but I'm not seeing what you're saying you are seeing from that diff as the link to the infobox you're presenting is on a different article. Maybe you're referring to this one, in which I was reverting a removal of a citation needed tag on the birth*place*, and didn't see that there was a change to the birthdate in the lede also (but as my edit summary indicates, the revert was prompted by the maintenance tag removal and the change to "interim" from "acting" --- a substantive, and legitimizing difference -- in the lede without a source). With regard to the Revolutionary Armed Forces article, that content was both unsourced and not found in the body of the article (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fear my point has gotten somewhat lost: Yes, the lack of communication is an issue. Yes, the removing of maintenance templates is an issue - but it's a normal disruptive editing issue. Not a vandalism issue. And yes, I did notice your previous warning - as well as all the other previous content edits you've made to that page, and the disputes you've gotten into with other editors about whether or not that "more citations needed" tag should be there.[6][7]. (WP:INVOLVED?) (unsolicited advice: while it's probably in the MOS somewhere that you should use the general tag instead of the inline citation needed tags when you want to flag an article, many editors (as we're about to go into) can't seem to see when information is unsourced and, given the absence of inline cn tags, are going to remove the overarching one because they, in good faith, think the problem has been resolved. It's not vandalism and I have no idea why you keep insisting other editors who remove that specific tag are vandals rather than doing the obvious thing and tagging the material you think needs citing)

No, your point hasn't gotten lost. I simply don't agree with it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand how you can't see "Pereira" in this diff [8], so let's be clear - you acknowledged above that you couldn't find "any instances with a sourced birthdate" in that article, and yet you still added the 1956 birthdate back in? Yes, I agree that the editor should have added a source for the 1955 year, but that's not an excuse to add the unsourced one back in. Which is is what you did.

You say "acting" and "interim" are different things - that's not true in this area. He was appointed presidente interino, which translates to English as 'acting president' and 'interim president' . As such, the terms are used interchangeably in reliable sources[9][10][11] And our articles on the matter (both at Pereira at List of presidents of Guinea-Bissau) describe him, sourced, as the acting president, which you should have seen at the time[12], given that is was mentioned 4 different times, including in the title of one of the sources! And no, they didn't add a source, but editors are allowed to change information in the lead with adding a citation (WP:LEADCITE) when it's in the body/infobox. Which this one clearly was.

FARP revert: yes, that change should have been sourced- but I mean, the ideal thing to do would have been to source it. While I understand how annoying it is to deal with unsourced additions to articles in the news, there's a point where the WP:SKYISBLUE and the guy who just got deposed isn't in charge of the government anymore and the guy who just promoted himself has left a vacancy. I normally do believe that people should be responsible for finding sources for material they wish to add, but. I mean. That was trivial to source. But putting that aside for a second, the material you added back in wasn't sourced either. Biague Na Ntan was not mentioned elsewhere in the article and the information about Dinis Incanha's role was, similarly, unsourced.

So let me ask you this: why is it okay for you to add back in unsourced, out of date, information, but block worthy vandlism if another editor does it?

And as to the final point, about incompetence being indistinguishable from bad faith editing. Interesting philosophy. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing *my* point -- as I've said already, the reason for the block was the repeated removal of maintenance tags. Seeing as you already have acknowledged above that was "disruptive editing", and we clearly disagree as to whether this particular disruptive editing is also vandalism (but do not seem to disagree that it "wasn't great" and that there were several issues going on), what is it that you're hoping to get out of this interrogation? Like, let's say I concede your point that "it's a normal disruptive editing issue, not a vandalism issue." It's still disruptive editing. It's still a problem. With regard to the birthdate revert, it appears to have been a mistake, which you corrected by reverting my edit shortly thereafter. So I'm just trying to understand what your desired end-state is here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On national security

Vagueness is undefined (by definition), therefore a vague notion cannot be a definition. As you point out, the title already indicates that the general topic is arriving at a definition. You incorrectly infer that the fact that what the text is arguing about is the definition implies that there is already a single definition, but reference does not imply existence. ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions can absolutely be vague. They can also be ambiguous. Vague does not mean "undefined". It *may* mean "not clearly defined" but it may not. [13]. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read your own link? Literally every meaning given is "indefinite, not precise, not clearly defined, not expressed precisely, not sharply outlined". So "vague" does mean "not/un (clearly) defined". Therefore defined vagueness is an oxymoron, therefore definitions cannot be vague. ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how not one of those definitions is "Vagueness is undefined by definition"? Indefinite is not the same thing as undefined; nor is it the same thing as "not clearly defined." Moreover, none of this is relevant because as you are well aware, the section in question is called "Definitions", and the source in question is "Defining national security". We go by what reliable sources say, not by your own personal preference. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vagueness is indeed undefinite (sorry, not undefined, that was my bad) by definition. But a dictionary isn’t going to tell you that, you need to delve a little deeper into the theory of language. Again, you incorrectly infer that the fact that what the text is arguing about is the definition implies that there is already a single definition, but reference does not imply existence. It’s a matter of truth, not preference. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that I'm inferring that there's an implied single definition is in error. Indeed, as I pointed out, we have seven competing definitions. It is not Wikipedia's place to pick which one is correct. We can state what reliable sources state the definition is, and we can identify where those definitions differ -- indeed, we're required by our NPOV policy to present all significant viewpoints. Which is.... what the article already does. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s precisely my point: if you admit that there are 7 definitions listed there (which is what I said in my first edit summary: it would be different definitions), then which of the seven is referred to at the beginning of the paragraph when it says: “ The definition of national security”? That’s why a different noun is necessarily required there. That’s usually called a notion (and a vague one at that). ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe that there is a singular, sole correct definition here or that it is our responsibility to make this call. We note that many definitions have been proposed and list several. Unless there is a reliable source that states there is a singular, sole definition for the term "national security" (spoiler alert: there isn't), then NPOV requires us to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Which, as I noted, we already do, by noting that it is ambiguous, i.e. "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways" (and specifically note the FAQ: "However, ambiguous most often describes something that is unclear specifically because it can be understood in more than one way, or because it has more than one possible meaning.") ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t answer my question. Trying to answer it will show you that a definition cannot be 7 definitions, and therefore one of the nouns is logically, necessarily incorrect. I’ll repeat it: Which of the 7 definitions is the one referred to at the beginning of the paragraph? I didn’t write that paragraph, you wrote "definition" there, so it must be you who thinks there’s a single definition. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer your question. You're continuing to make the mistake of presuming that the word "The" refers to a specific one of the 7 definitions listed here; that is not a logical assumption. If you want to be *really* pedantic about it, one could swap the word "the" for "a" to more clearly specify this, but that is not the point you're currently arguing nor that you have been arguing since your beef appears to be with the word "definition" which is explicitly the language used by the source in question. And as a final note, you're certainly well aware that I quite literally just said that there are multiple definitions and that our policy requires us to list them all; you actively responded to that point, so you clearly are well aware that I do not believe that there is a single definition. Please do not attempt to gaslight me with "No, it must be *you* that believes <thing completely opposite to what I believe>" -- this is not constructive commentary, and I do not tolerate that on my talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not answer. My assumption is a logical assumption, and it’s deductively necessary, but it seems I need a simple example to get my point across: if you say “The banana I bought is yellow” (same exact logical structure as the phrase “The definition of national security is ambiguous”), and you show 7 bananas (definitions), you are necessarily referring to only one of those bananas (definitions), otherwise you would need to use the plural. Anyway, I’ll accept what you wrote before as a compromise: “many definitions have been proposed”. That is logically correct. Would you care to do the edit or should I? --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do so; if you do I'd suggest including an edit summary along the lines of "per discussion at User talk:Swatjester" to connect the history for any future/external observers. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s great to finally get to understand each other. I’ll include that summary. Please feel free to edit what I’ll do, but please don’t restore the logical problem. The circle gets closed when one realises that what’s defined in different ways is a notion, which is exactly what I wrote in the first place, but I think the agreed wording, although incomplete, is enough. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think it looks good. Good to talk with you. ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 5: Foundation and Friends' Free Culture Friday

December 5: Free Culture Friday

You are invited to Foundation and Friends' Free Culture Friday at Prime Produce on Friday, December 5. This event will be held upstairs in the Cybernetics Library and will feature a reception with Wikimedia Foundation staff in the afternoon, followed by a more informal gathering for editing and socializing into the evening. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Friday, December 5, 2025 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm (Wikimedia Foundation staff + community meet-and-greet) 3:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open salon, hacking, and board games) Prime Produce, 424 W 54th St All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]