User talk:Kafziel/archive1

This talk page is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct new comments to the current talk page.

DLI

Thanks for the keeping the DLI article bleeding-edge, I hadn't seen any of that information about the BRAC. When were you at the Det? I was there early 99 to late 2000. Fox1 20:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

MI

No worries. I figured it was just a goof. Cheers! 23skidoo 18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

HAWK article WIP

Hello - I'm currently working on a complete re-write of the HAWK article - currently sitting in my sandbox User:Megapixie/HawkWIP. You mentioned you had some experience with the system and I wondered if you could help - I'm struggling with some of the differences between variants of the missiles (and dates of inception). Do you happen to know what the difference is between the MIM-23C and MIM-23D missiles is?

Rather than being merged in subsequent upgrades to the system into a single type (which would seem to make sense) - they continued to exist throughout the lifetime of the system (see the family tree in the article). My best guesses are:

• One is the dumbed down export version.
• One is the Army version, one is the USMC version.
• They have alternative guidance systems (probably different bands) to make the overall system more resistant to ECM.
• One is nuclear capable (Genie style), the other isn't (unlikely).

Anyway - if you could shed any light on the subject it would be most helpful (also if you have anything else to add, please do) - feel free to make edits to the article, but please add, rather than subtracting - I will edit it down to something more readable when I have a more complete picture of the system. Megapixie 07:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Kafziel, User:Megapixie/HawkWIP has been deleted per Megapixie's request. If you'd like to see what was there, have Megapixie request undeletion from me or another admin. Cheers, Tomer^talk 03:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Subase New London

Actually, I have been thinking about adding instructions to the BRAC templete for this reason. After thinking about it over diner I do believe that I was a bit hasty in removing the notice, and that the BRAC templete on the page should be reinstated. TomStar81 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Belated thanks for the barnstar, re NAS Oceana. —wwoods 20:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

More thanks!

Hey, thanks for catching my error before I could. Wikipedia needs people that are as on the ball as you are. --Orgullomoore 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for my first barnstar. I'm glad to see that some people liked my little portal link. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars: Battlefront II

You're doing a good job on that article, and I'm glad I can be of some help to you on it. Keep up the good work. Oh, and, I'll make sure to finish up the vehicles section soon... --CountCrazy007 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Navy

Hello. Great work on disambiguating Imperial Navy. One thing though--when doing a move, it's important to keep the edit history with the page. Therefore, we use the move button instead of cutting-and-pasting the article text. I've gone ahead and fixed it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be serious

I see you put a merge on the Peter Brownback article, without initiating a discussion where you justify your action on Talk:Peter Brownback. Could you please be more serious? The guy is the Presiding officer of a highly controversial proceeding, for crying out loud.

I see you added an {Importance} tag to the Robert L. Swann (military lawyer) article. Are you seriously suggesting that being the chief prosecutor of a highly controversial trial does not make a subject import enough to merit an article in the wikipedia?

Four months ago I triggered the animosity of a highly partisan guy. He started abusing wikipedia policies and procedures, when he couldn't sway others through legitimate channels. One of his techniques was to place bogus tags on articles, which he would then refuse to explain or defend. I thought his actions were extremely disruptive, damaging and disrespectful.

It has made me sensitive to when other wikipedians aren't careful. You put a tag on the Peter Brownback article that tells readers to look to the talk page for a discussion of your suggestion. Then I think you have a serious obligation to initiate that discussion.

I fully intended to initiate a discussion as I did on the other related articles. Wikipedia's servers were having problems earlier and I was not able to get it done as quickly as I would have liked.

You are right, I do not think Robert Swann is important enough to warrant his own article. I put the "importance" tag on there before I even suggested the merge. He is only the lead prosecutor because other people have stepped down, and he hasn't made any great accomplishments since taking over. He hasn't done anything. There is practically no information to be found on him anywhere, and therefore there is not enough information to create a separate article about him. I think this information would be much better served in the main article, as I said on your talk page. Hopefully we are moving toward an understanding.

I have no intention to vandalize your pages and no personal vendetta against you; I found these stubs and they do not link to anything but each other, so I wanted to move them where they can be seen. Kafziel 15:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

About merging, in general

A lot of wikipedians are keen on the idea of merging every article in sight. However, many of the merges I have seen have degraded the value of the wikipedia, not enhanced it. Articles are all linear, from top to bottom. Human knowledge is a network. A constellation of smaller, linked articles suits most topics better than one large monolith article. It makes it easier for readers to read only those portions that meet their needs. It makes linking to other articles more useful. When I click on a link to another article I don't want to guess as to how it relates to article I was just reading. I don't want to spend five minutes to searching for the couple of paragraphs in a big article that relates to the actual information I need. I don't want to spend 30 seconds searching for it -- not when those couple of paragraphs could stand on their own.

That is my view on the value of merging. So, what is yours?

Ah. I see you have left a note on my talk page. I am about to go read it. -- Geo Swan 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I will respond here. Yes, I did misunderstand your intent.

Thanks for the heads-up on the lack of connectedness of those articles. That is one of the things that fellow I mentioned used to do -- remove the passages with the links I made between articles. But, that may just be something that has to be lived with.

Brownback, Swann, Borch, Carr, Preston are all connected to the military commissions. But lawyers like Colangelo-Bryan aren't. A couple of months ago I considered starting an article, like List of Guantanamo Bay detainees about the lawyers, which described the legal hurdles the DoD has put into place. These roadblocks go almost unmentioned. Muneer Ahmad described trying to review his notes from his first meeting with Omar Khadr. When they want to meet with their clients they have to book an appointment, a month or more in advance, then fly to Guantanamo. They notes they take in to the meeting have to be subjected to a security review. And, after they meet with their clients, they have to hand in the notes they took, for another security review. They don't get to see their own notes. They have to wait until their notes have been cleared, and then go to a secure site in the DC area, to read them. Muneer Ahmad found that all twenty pages of his notes were classified.

I would prefer that this information found its way into the wikipedia, but wasn't buried in the articles about Ahmad and Khadr.

I think the legal roadblocks merits an article, but I don't know how to start one that won't spark a controversy over bias.

In the meantime, would you be satisfied if I started another table on the guantanamo military commissions article, with an entry for each known lawyer, with links to the articles about each lawywer with notable information? -- Geo Swan 15:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, removed my suggestions for merging (and the "importance" tag) from the articles, and started a new "prosecution" section on the Guantanamo military commissions page. Hopefully that will draw some new contributors to the other articles and help bring in some new information. I'm glad we were able to find some middle ground so easily! Kafziel 16:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I haven't been going through my watchlist lately, so I just noticed Max rspct's edit of my user page. I appreciate your reverting him. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User page censorship is a big pet peeve of mine. Glad to help. Kafziel 01:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Invasion, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Working group" wikifications

What difference does the pluralization make? Does Wikipedia have a code of etiquette on the matter? Folajimi^(talk)

Thanks for the note. However, I had no idea that my actions would inadvertently "tax the system" by performing a double redirect(?) Nevertheless, I shall see if I can correct the errors once I am through.

In the meantime, I shall heed your suggestion. Folajimi^(talk)

How can the pluralization redirect pages be deleted? Or what should become of them? Folajimi^(talk)

Thank you for notifying me about the working group blunder in time. Once I completed the original effort, I went back to redirect the articles with the improper formatting. Thanks again for the heads-up. Folajimi^(talk)

About changing name

Dear Kafziel, it's Yann speaking, I changed my name to Triskell on the Camp Detla talk page, I added a comment about it somewhere. This is not okay? --Triskell 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize that was you. But no, that is not okay. "Triskell" did not contribute those comments, as can be seen in that user name's list of contributions. That is why I thought it was vandalism.

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Having multiple names does not look good for you. Flipping user pages like that can hurt your credibility. Are you Guehene? Cassiopeia? Triskell? Who knows? Sock puppets are permitted in certain cases but generally not a very good idea. :Everyone has an argument or two in their history, it's not the end of the world. Just try not to get into any more and eventually it will be forgotten. Kafziel 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I had read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry but this is not my intention nor it is to hide our argument. I actually would like to forward things from Guehene to Triskell, as I have already started to do here because I don't like the name Guehene as a user name (and Cassiopeia was already taken). What solution do I have? --Triskell 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your problem. What you will need to do is "move" your user page, just like you would a regular article page. If you want to use the name "Triskell" here is what you will need to do:

1. Post User:Triskell on speedy deletions (because you need it to be completely erased). When you post it make sure you are signed in as Triskell so they know it is your page.
2. Once that page has been deleted by an admin, go to User:Guehene and click on the tab at the top that says "move" (just to the right of the "history" tab).
3. A page will come up asking you where you want to move it to. Say you want to move it to User:Triskell and the system will move it for you along with your talk and history.
4. Once that is done, go back to WP:SD and request that User:Guehene be deleted. (This time post your request as Guehene, so again they know it is your page.) When that is deleted, you will officially be Triskell and you will have no sock puppets. Good luck! Kafziel 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this most useful information! I'll do that right now... All the best! --Triskell 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Any time. We agnostic Bush-haters have to stick together! :) Kafziel 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Heartwarming. *sniff* ;) -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you, you made my wikipeducation :-D See you around... --Triskell 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tags

I noticed you dropped speedy tags on Soulescape.com and Soulescape with a reason of "advertising". Do note that advertising does not appear anywhere in WP:CSD, which are deliberately narrowly phrased. I've removed the speedy tag, redirected the second to the first, and we should allow AfD to do its work. If you would like adverts to be speediable, you can propose this at WT:CSD, but it is frequently proposed and rejected for a number of reasons. It makes admins' life easier if speedy tags are not placed in a speculative manner, since they do not then have to do the legwork of an AfD nomination which the original tagger ought more properly to have done. Thanks. -Splash^talk 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The deleting admin is the one takes full responsibility for the deletion. They cannot palm the blame for a wrongful deletion off onto anyone else, and so admins must be sure they are deleting in a manner that will not get them in trouble. Removing tags from an article is indeed vandalism, but that doesn't make it a speedy! Indeed, once the article is listed on AfD, it can't be removed (unless the vandal is very knowledegable) and so it's enough to just reinstate the AfD tag. As for WP:VAND, "spam" and "advert" appear once and once only on the page, both in the same sentence. That one sentence explicitly refers to external links rather than mere text. However, sometimes things are clearly pure spam despite the presence of text and can, barely, be speedied under this provision. However, the manifestation of this part of WP:VAND is actually CSD A3 which also talks about external links. (In fact, it has been very poorly rephrased and has had that particular rather neutered.) The time you spent clearing up is of course appreciated, but when somebody is using the CSD in a manner they are not intended for, I don't see anything wrong in letting them know. -Splash^talk 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Soulescape

Hi. Can you let me know what template you used for the warning? Thanks! --Perfecto 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I responded over at my talk page by the way. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

Cheers for the note on my user page. It's much appreciated. I definitely think wikipedians should be more vocal when someone is doing well, as well as telling them off when they're not. :) MartinRe 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:165.29.159.126

Five edits in an eight day span should be easy enough to handle by oneself. Since it appears to be a static IP and possibly not shared, I'll go ahead and block it for 48 hours. Really, though, WP:AIV should be used for more urgent requests. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:39, Feb. 7, 2006

Thanks for the help. It was an urgent request at the time; I never know how long he'll be on or how many times he'll vandalize the page before he's gone. I doubt he even noticed the last block because it was only for a few hours and he probably never even tried to come back until after it had expired.

The nature of the edit makes me wonder if it's actually Victor Rasuk himself, and maybe he's embarrassed about that part of his article so he keeps taking it out. I've never seen such a persistent (and consistent) vandal. Kafziel 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"I've never seen such a persistent (and consistent) vandal." ← lol, you must be new? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:48, Feb. 7, 2006

LOL, I've seen some persistent vandals, but I've never seen someone stick to the exact same edits to the exact same page over the course of a number of weeks, especially without ever making other comments (not even on the talk page or the edit summaries), never getting mad that I keep reverting him, never trying to vandalize my user page... vandals with this much of a one-track mind are pretty rare. Kafziel 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

There's a certain word I'd love to put here but I won't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatBarrington (talk • contribs)

Oh, by all means - feel free. All I ask is that you have the sack to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). Looking forward to your wisdom. Kafziel 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Luminare

I'll be more clear here. Luminare is not acting in good faith. The ground-work for removing the German study was attempted three days ago at the talk page for the verifiability policy - specifically, the section [[1]]. This is a continuing pattern of behavior - Luminare attempts to create some sort of false consensus that a policy say something that it dosent on the policy talk page, then goes to one of her three POV-push articles, and tries to use that conversation as a basis to remove information he dosen't like. You are late to this pattern, but it is blatently obvious. I suggest you ask any of the reputable admins participating in the "discussion" at the verifiability page what they believe Luminare's motivation is. You will find that WP:AGF has been left behind quite some time ago. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already looked at the histories of everyone on that page and I know Lumiere has been uncivil and difficult at times. We've all made mistakes. Fortunately for all involved, we're not arguing the merits of the individuals in the discussion, but the merits of the different points of view.

As I said at the bottom of the talk page, the reasons seem clear for removing the mention of the German study. As it stands, it's not verifiable. All I see is an obviously biased website and a German site I can't read. If you can come up with some unbiased English source material with which to verify the story, I would support keeping it. If you can't, then it isn't independently verifiable (and, at the risk of sounding ethnocentric, if it can't be verified anywhere in English, maybe it isn't notable enough to be included on the English Wikipedia).

Lumiere may get into a lot of unreasonable arguments, but as they say, even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while. ;) Kafziel 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

When exactly I was uncivil? Am I uncivil now? I think others have been uncivil. --Lumière 21:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to go back to the old citation, in which the study was made refrence to only in relation to the ruling of the german court. However, if we did that, all of the statements about how the study were so terribly biased would obviously have to go, because they are not discussed in the german court decision, which is obviously WP:V, even if the web-translation of the decision is hosted by someone who you have determined is not WP:RS. The court decision itself can be cited per a court decision, rather than as a web reference. Does this work? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak German; what does the ruling itself actually say? Did the German government rule that meditating is bad for you and make some kind of law against it? Does the German government publish warnings against the dangers of meditation? I'm not clear on the ruling itself.

If, at the end of this, we have verifiable sources for the study's results and no verifiable sources stating that it was biased, that's fine with me. Both sides need sources, not just yours. That's for sure. Kafziel 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You did great work here. It's appreciated. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"grim and frosbitten"

Sorry about that. And thanks for such a speedy detection.

Invasion

I tried to put in footnotes for the reference section. I hope I did it right. If they are correct, in my opinion this article is ready for FAC. The worst that could happen is that we get more feedback on how to make it better. If you think it's ready also, I'll let you do the honors of nominating it (you have worked on it more). Cool RENTA^{FOR LET?} 02:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me. I'll have to make a note of how you did that, for future reference. Okay, I guess it's time to throw it into the lions' den and see what happens! Kafziel 05:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack warning

Please refrain from attacking other editors because you assume that they did not act in good faith. Read WP:AGF --Lumière 21:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Ha ha ha ha ha Kafziel 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Personal Attack warning

Please refrain from personal attack such as in this edit, in which you accuse User:Lumiere of "spiteful retaliation". This type of misconducts happen when an editor is convinced that he has no point of view. Read WP:AGF again. -Lumière 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Kafziel 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a a sort of nervous laugh! -Lumière 17:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen, man, I'm not sure what you want me to say. I haven't touched the article for days, so why don't you go do what you want to do and stop harrassing me? I tried to help you out; I was on your side from the beginning and defended your stance against Hipocrite. But the topic of the article itself is so meaningless to me, I really don't feel the need to deal with your bullshit anymore, especially since if I'm gone, you don't have a single ally left on that page. So have at it. Enjoy yourself. Kafziel 17:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I reverted the comment that I made about your nervous laugh, because I felt it wasn't useful. You don't care about the article, but you do care about other things such as erased comments that are hidden in the history. You dig into he history, find these comments, put them back in your talk page and reply! BTW, it is you that keep harassing me. I just replied to your personal attacks. --Lumière 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's my talk page history. I'll "dig" through it if I damn well please. You made the comment and then deleted it, which I do not find acceptable on my talk page. You can apologize for it if you'd like, but you can't delete it. Next time you post a comment, think about it before you hit "save".

I'm not sure if you're making these harrassment claims for your own gratification or for posterity or what, but it's pretty clear that you don't have a leg to stand on since these are all posts on my talk page. I can write whatever I want here; if you weren't stalking me, you wouldn't even know I was writing anything here. Kafziel 17:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not complaining about the fact that you undeleted my comment. I just find it interesting that you did that. That's all. This was not an harassment. Just replying to you. BTW, I know that you wanted to help. It just did not work well, and you started to misinterpret my edits and attack me. I appreciate your initial good will. Lumière 18:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my help worked quite well for the section I was called in on. The entire thing was marked with source requests and re-written to be perfectly NPOV, with the help of a German-speaking TM practitioner. (You're welcome, by the way.) The problem didn't arise until after I had done all that, when you found a different section to pick at instead. At which point I realized you were more interested in arguing than in creating a good article. So I lost interest, because the topic of the article couldn't possibly mean less to me and I'm not going to waste time trying to help ungrateful and argumentative editors.

Now, please go back to doing what you were doing and leave me alone. Don't even feel the need to reply to this. Your leaving me in peace will be thanks enough. Kafziel 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (nevertheless). I must have the last word! --Lumière 18:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I've actually been editing minor Wiki typos for quite a while, but never a really major edit, for fear of stepping on toes. (Well actually I worked on the E. Nesbit article.) laddiebuck 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have you. Enjoy yourself, and if you have any questions or problems don't hesitate to ask. Kafziel 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured!

I just wanted to let you know that Pink Floyd is now a featured article. Thanks a ton for supporting the candidacy! - dharmabum 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WWI title pic

Original message: Have you seen the photoshopped errors in your picture? They're not in the original photos, just in your collage version. I'm a little confused because I know you are serious about these topics, so I can't imagine that it was you who did it. Thought you might want to know. Kafziel 23:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Thanks a lot, Kafziel! No, I am not the perpetrator :) . At first I didn't understand what you meant, and it took me quite a while to spot the difference - the vandalism was very subtle and professional. Actually I had a laugh - a swastika on a WW1 plane and Bruce Willis in the trenches (he must have thought of the movie Twelve Monkeys). Anyway, thanks for notifying me! I have tagged the fake image for speedy deletion. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

"Not a bad looking article, by the way." Is that the woman or the page? ;-D Giano | talk 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... well, maybe back in 1912. I don't know about the old lady version, though. :) Kafziel 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3o

I wonder if the 3o you gave on naked short selling was worded strongly enough - I agree complete with what you said, but I think you might have wanted to come in stronger, with something like "I find that including the entirey of the SEC quote is excessive. I believe the best solution is to summarize the entirety of the quote in one paragraph and provide a link to the full quote for anyone interested." It looks like you're about to get mired into a back and forth over there. If you'd like some backup, I'm happy to help - I think 3o is a great tool, and I salute all the providers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

I owe you an apology. I mean who was I to tell you to put footnotes in the Invasion article? Honestly, I know nothing & you knew better than me! Therefore you shouldn't put the footnotes in. Oh? What? Someone just told me you did put footnotes in?! That would make me.... Right? And you would be? Wrong? A know-it-all? Hmmm... I guess I did know better than you & Renta aye? I guess you shouldn't have put me down all those times & maybe done the job I asked you to do earlier? Have a nice time kicking youself.... Spawn Man 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude... get over it. I didn't say you were right, I said even though it is not a valid objection, I'm tired of arguing about it. So yes, your insane ramblings (as well as actual threats against RentaStrawberry) helped break down my resolve. Yes, a 15-year-old showed up and said he likes footnotes. He asked nicely, and I was tired of explaining the same thing over and over, so I just did it.

Wow. I've met some fucking children on Wikipedia, but you take the cake. Kafziel 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now now Caféreel, lets not get all wound up because you were absolutely wrong. Besides, I'm twenty five. Where does everyone get that I'm 14-15? Is there a "Make Spawn sound younger than he really is" project? Anyway, using the word "fucking" is naughty. What would your mother say? Spawn Man 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. I really like cake, so I'm glad I took some!

The guy who "agrees" with you is 15 years old. Obviously I wasn't talking about you, because I said he asked nicely. Kafziel 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's a comedian.... Spawn Man 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. Don't quit your day job...

thanks

Kafziel, thanks for the kind welcome, I hope to be both bold and prudent. I look forward to contributing loads more in the future (after getting through all the tuts)

Kind Regard Darren--Daz 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Kafziel, thanks for the welcome message. By the way, "I do not believe a neutral point of view and a politically correct point of view are the same thing; in fact, they are often opposites.". Brilliant and ever so true. Logank 19:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kafziel

Hi. I've read many wikipedia articles over the past year. My question for you is (I haven't contributed too much yet) - Should I update information about my profile. I don't want to add my name as a vanity thing - just if it's helpful for other wiki users. I guess that's the main question I have for now. I hope I can count on you to be a good wiki mentor for me :).

Sean

Hi, Sean,

It's not required to add information to your user page if you don't want to; there are quite a few good wikipedians out there who have been contributing for years and have never written anything on their user pages.

In some of the projects I work on, it helps for people to be able to see some information about me (where I'm from, a little bit of background, etc.) so they know where I'm coming from. But it's not necessary.

One good thing about at least putting something on there is that it turns your user name from a red link to a blue link; even if all you do is say hello. Having your name in blue helps other editors trust you more. You'll see what I mean after you've been editing for a while.

The best thing about having a user page is that when you type four ~ at the end of what you write, it turns into your signature and people can click on it to be able to send messages to you more easily. So when I'm done typing this, all I have to do is hit ~ four times, and it makes this: Kafziel 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

invasion

Well, I have been a periodic editor of this article, which you previously thanked me for. I liked the article and happen to like the list of invasions the article included. I did see why several had been removed from the list (and I did not research who had done it--in a public article that does not matter) so I put them back in--as I have a right and obligation as an editor to do. You provided an explanation of what you are doing now. That's fine. I am not sure about the title of the new section involving 'records'. Invasions can be historically significant (having a major immediate impact or subsequent impact) without having set any records. Perhaps you might want to consider renaming the section as 'major invasions' and having within that section subsections for each major invasion with a narrative. That would make it easier for the reader, I believe. Thanks. Hmains 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you've done work on the article before, which is why I was offended. When you went into history to get the info to put back in, you should have been able to see that it wasn't some nut who made the change and looked a little closer. It's not a big deal at all to me, I'm really not angry or anything, honest.

I agree that invasions can be historically significant without setting records. That's why the second section is still there. A voter on the FAC page asked for info on record setting invasions, and no one objected, so I set it up that way.

When the rest of the list is removed (which will be in a little while) it will be in a section like what you just suggested; a main section of "Other significant invasions" and subsections for each one. Kafziel 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense meant/intended--just my inexperience showing. Thanks for your good work. Hmains 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

You did really well on getting that article from a stub to FA. You deserve a big congratulations. Now I guess it's on to the next project ha. Maybe we can work on another article like this in the future. RENTA^{FOR LET?} 18:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. If you ever nom another COTW or want help on getting an article featured, I'll be happy to pitch in. Kafziel 19:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A belated congratulations. It really is a well-done article. Can't wait to see what you do next. :) Gflores ^Talk 18:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bob Geldof

Yes I think some people haven't quite got the meaning of WP:V. It is perfectly possible his father's mother was Jewish but I found no reliable info on google referring to it. Arniep 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not change my post headings under any circumstances!

I recently observed a blatant attempt by yourself to tarnish my reputation when you changed my heading "Haaaaaaaaaa!!" to "Hate Mail" in this edit; [2]. Please do not ever do so again or I will get serious, as so many other smarmy neanderthals have found out too late. Don't be one of those neanderthals. Spawn Man 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

You posted to that section after I changed the heading. I thought that's what you were talking about when you said, "Everybody's a comedian." But I guess "NY humor" is different than "NZ humour". You don't need my help tarnishing your reputation; you're doing just fine on your own. It did strike me as sad to have to hide the evidence of your behavior in an archive, though, so thanks for continuing your insane ramblings and stalking onto my fresh talk page. Kafziel 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd watch yourself with me, you're not making any pen pals here.... And yes, New York persons seem to be too wrapped up in their meaningless lives with their funny accents & stupid names like "Kafziel"? I mean, what kinda funny name is Kafziel? Honestly, you're angering me so I'm gonna not worry about your pathetic fungal mass you call a body any more!! Spawn Man 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC). BTW, I never should have changed my vote to support you! Toad stool!

What does that mean, "watch yourself with me"? Surely it's not a physical threat, because you're clearly the type of person who likes to talk tough on the Internet before going back to painting his Lord of the Rings vinyl model kits. So I assume it's a Wikipedia-based threat, which couldn't be more laughable. What can you do? I haven't done anything wrong. How many messages have I left on your talk page? How many users have I threatened? You don't seem to have a leg to stand on, and even if you did... oooooh. A vengeant Wikipedian stalker from New Zealand who calls people toad stools. Frightening stuff, seriously. Kafziel 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's it! You've thrown my hand! I'm gonna say something I really didn't want to say to you, but after you insulted my mother! My mother!!!! That's just the last straw!! .....You're an absolute banana head! There you go, that's my threat taken into action! Spawn Man 03:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC). BTW, what's wrong with painting for money? Like to see you do better. Plus, banana head, it's not vinyl! Ha! I laugh in your general direction.... ! Plus more, thanks for obviously viewing my review's page!!! I appreciate it!

Special characters in Wiktionary

Is this the right place to ask the following question? I tried to start a Wiktionary article on the Greek word "νᾶνος", but in the heading Internet Explorer showed the Greek letter alpha with a circumflex accent as a square. This can be corrected with a Unicode template or a Polytonic template (if that template will be accepted in Wiktionary), but apparently not in the heading. To avoid this I entered the article under the heading "νανος" without the accent, with a cross-reference from the form with the accent. Is there a better way to do it? Ericus 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot of browsers can't properly display certain characters. Looks like you may have come up with a good solution, but I've only contributed to wiktionary a couple of times so I'm not positive about their policies. Worth a try, anyway. Just out of curiosity, why put a Greek word in an English dictionary? I mean, shouldn't it at least be transliterated into Latin letters or something? The Greek Wiktionary is here, if that helps at all. Good luck! Kafziel 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This text is from the main page of the English wiktionary: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages, with definitions and descriptions in English only. For example, see Wörterbuch (a German word). In order to find a German definition of that word, you would visit the equivalent page in the German Wiktionary." This means that we should be able to put Greek words in all wiktionaries. The difference is that the English one has English definitions, whereas the Greek one has Greek definitions. Ericus 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Weird, but cool. I'll have to check out Wiktionary more one of these days. Well, sorry I couldn't be more help since I don't really use that site much, but hopefully your solution will work. Kafziel 17:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I need some assistance please

Someone really messed up the HTML in the article Battle of Bunker Hill. Since I no little to nothing about HTML could you fix it? I already removed a nonsense prahse from the top but, can't fix the rest. I ask User:Wyss but hhe is not responding. Please help (Steve 19:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I reverted to an even older version, before any of the vandalism started. Looks okay now. Kafziel 20:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping! :) (Steve 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Question

I was wondering, if you were interested, in joining Middle-earth WikiProject. We've revamped, and unofficially merged with Silmarillion WikiProject to start over since the others were inactive. The WikiProject's still in his baby stages, so we've just started officially yesterday.

We need more members and this WikiProject is a good way for all the Tolkien fans to come join together in an organized and efficient way so that maybe one day, one of the Tolkien-related articles may reach to FA status, among other things.

If you don't want to, or you just have a minor interest in LotR, then you needn't to join if you don't want. Thanks for taking time to read this :). So if you join, our thanks! —Mirlen 15:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I don't think I'm enough of an expert on the subject to add much to the content, but I'd certainly be willing to stop in from time to time to help with copyedits, etc. I've been very impressed with the Middle Earth articles I've read so far, and I'd be happy to help if I can. Kafziel 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

About the chokehold article

This is something i've been working on for quite some time now. The term "chokehold" is a misnomer that comes from "choking", while the correct term for such a technique is "stranglehold". But if you insist, i'll open a discussion about it. ---Marcus- 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with anyone else, maybe somewhere I didn't see it? By the way, I wouldn't have a problem with renaming the Chokehold article "Stranglehold"; that would still differentiate it properly from actual strangulation. Kafziel 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll open a discussion about this in the chokehold article. I reverted all the link edits back for now. ---Marcus- 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to split the strangling article, and use some of the material to improve the chokehold article instead. This will make it easier to link directly to strangleholds/chokeholds from various martial arts articles. So no worries about that anymore. ---Marcus- 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3o

I will be forming an RFC shortly, sadly enough. Thank you for your assistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

invasion

Wow, that is a badass article. I am really impressed. ... aa:talk 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was my first FAC nom, and it was an interesting experience. Can't say I'm in a huge hurry to do it again, but I'm glad I did it and I'm sure I'll do it again eventually. Kafziel 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bath School disaster

Thanks for your note and for your vote on the FAC. Jtmichcock 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Madea's Family Reunion

Thanks for trying; I thought my rewritten copy was a decent compromise - it's good to know that I'm not completely out of my gourd. Mhking 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

• Always nice to wakeup to a barnstar in your discussion page. Thanks and please help with what you can. Sometimes I think I bit off more than I can chew by creating that thing.--Looper5920 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I gave you the Expeditionary Medal; there hasn't been a specific campaign medal created for Wikipedia, but it's definitely a battle trying to maintain big projects like that! ;) Kafziel 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

US Bill of Rights

Back, and better than ever. You voted on the last one, come see the improvements. Kaisershatner 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3k

And congratulations on your three thousandth edit. :) ... aa:talk 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks - I never thought I'd stick around this long! I guess I'm officially an addict. :) Kafziel 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 11:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights

Hi, I clipped 50% of the text of the second paragraph; what remains of the intro, in my opinion, is essential to giving an overview of the United States Bill of Rights: (1) what it is, (2) where it comes from, (3) why it matters. I hope I can swing you from conditional to "Support." Either way, I enjoyed reading your userpage. Sounds like we have some common interests. Kaisershatner 14:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How can I Aquire the Absinthe decanter (or one exactly like it) ?

Hello RE: (del) (cur) 23:12, 27 January 2006 . . Kafziel (Talk) . . 480x640 (35813 bytes) (A decanter full of Absinthe. Taken by me. At my house. In the U.S.) The picture that is posted in your article

How can I Aquire the decanter (or one exactly like it) ? The decanter can be empty Just trying to aquire a decanter like yours Would you be willing to sell yours ? If so, at what cost ?

Any help would be appreciated

Thanx, Bryan Hopkins 917.439.9345 bryanhopkins@mac.com

I bought the decanter on eBay several years ago. The Absinthe itself is from Spain. Neither is for sale, sorry. Kafziel 17:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanx (again) Bryan Hopkins 060325

Hurricane (song)

How did Carter and Artis "win" a new trial? Lion King 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... with the New Jersey Supreme Court verdict. Is that not clear? I thought it was implied that they won the right through legal proceedings, as opposed to winning it on The Price is Right. ;) If you think it needs clarification, feel free. I have no problem with that. Kafziel 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

LOL, thanks!Gator (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Diamonds

Greetings. First I want to thank you for starting the page on The Diamonds. For the past eight years I have maintained a web site dedicated to this group. I am also the user Min7th, who made the edits on the page you started. One thing I subscribe to is obeying the rules, so I have a question about links. Is it proper to link my web site to the Wikipedia page? I sell nothing on the site and my opinions are positive toward the memory of The Diamonds. I just want to give the opportunity to have complete information. www.min7th.com/diamonds is the link if you wish to check it out. I look forward to hearing from you.

It's not usually a good idea to link to your own web page from an article you are editing, but that's an excellent web site, so I've inserted the link myself. This way it's simply a case of giving readers good information, without the appearance of any vanity on your part. Nice work on the article here, too, by the way. Kafziel 00:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks == min7th 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bath School disaster

Thanks for the note! I've been getting a lot of positive feedback and I'm really pleased that a lot of attention has been focused on those poor kids. Jtmichcock 11:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

a good example of new citing guidelines?

Could you guide me to a page that does a good job of following the reccomended guidelines so that I can import that style into the Idit Harel Caperton article? Thanks again for your peer review. youngamerican (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Invasion is one of mine, and the first time I had to deal with using the new cite format. It's a good example because it has a mixture of web-based sources and book sources, so if you can see the differences in the coding.

Basically the difference is that you put the source information right in the text, and then the references section creates itself.

If you have any questions, let me know. Kafziel 15:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be having trouble with the following citation: Harel, Idit & Papert, Seymour (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In Idit Harel & Seymour Papert (Ed.), Constructionism, pp. 51-52. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. ISBN 0-89391-785-0.

The template is not clear on how to cite chapters in a compilation book. youngamerican (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The long version of the template is {{cite book | last= | first= | authorlink= | coauthors= | editor= | others= | title= | origdate= | origyear= | origmonth= | url= | format= | accessdate= | accessyear= | accessmonth= | edition= | date= | year= | month= | publisher= | location= | language= | id= | pages= | chapter= | chapterurl= }}

You can use all or some of those fields. For the example above, you can do <ref>{{cite book|author=Idit, Harel, and Seymour|title=Software design as a learning environment|year=1991|publisher=Ablex Publishing Corporation|location=Norwood, NJ|id=ISBN 0893917850|chapter=Constructionism|pages=51-52}}</ref> which will create this and then by simply typing <references/> in the references section, the section will fill in the information automatically, like this:

References

Hope that helps. Kafziel 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it. Check it out (if you don't mind) to see how it looks. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That'll do it! I know it's kind of a pain in the ass to do the changes at first, but now if you need to move sections around or whatever, the references will move with them without getting jumbled up. Nice work. Kafziel 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Terry f'n Crowley

Real people take precedence over fictional characters. The baseball player should stay where he is, because he's a real-life famous person. Fictional characters (or less-famous real-life people) that share a name are the ones that get the () in the title. Everything works fine the way it is now. Kafziel 23:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I may have fubared, based on your statement here. User:Zarbon had moved "Terry Crowley" to "Terry Crowley (player)" and thereby made it a redirect. What I did was make "Terry Crowley" redirect to "Terry Crowley (disambiguation)" instead. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably the right thing to do here is to have "Terry Crowley" be the ball player, and have a note at the top directing people to the disambiguation page if they are looking for someone else. Chances are, most people searching for Terry Crowley are going to be looking for the ball player, not the linguist. Even so, your way is much better than the way Zarbon had it. If it's hard to tell who is the most famous, your way is the best bet. In this case, one look at the linguist's page tells you all you need to know. I'll fix it. Thanks for your help, by the way - what a pain in the ass this turned into, huh? :) Kafziel 23:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ontario elections

Could I please request that you *not* de-link the redlinks on these pages. This has come up for discussion before; several former redlinks have subsequently been linked to candidate list pages per a Wikipedia compromise (removing the links simply creates more work when the list pages are established). CJCurrie 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see that on the discussion page. But per the rules in the Manual of Style, excessive redlinks (especially to non-notable persons, such as the loser of an election 25 years ago) should be avoided. If you create the article, then you can go back and link it. Until then, it shouldn't be there. However, I did leave red links for anyone who is marked as having won their election.

There are also repetetive links; each person should only be linked to once per article. I haven't removed the redundant ones. Kafziel 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey..

Hey Kafziel.. please do not get mad at me, but I changed your GA decision on Tacitus. See my points on it's talk page, hopefully it's justified. If you are any problems reply here (if you could drop a note on my talk page that would help too, especially if it's urgent), Thanks much Highway 16:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your notes. Different editors have different standards for Good Articles, and I have no problem with your removal of the tag.

I'm starting to work on some changes in the article, so obviously I will recuse myself if and when it is nominated again. Thanks for your input. Kafziel 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted me to review it again (haha sure :P) then I'd do it, GA is meant to be "an editor's opinion of an article from the opinion of another article"(said by Corbell Simpson) so editting then reviewing may be confusing.. or whatever :P I know I'm rather strict about GAs :P I tend to think of it as one below FA, resulting in me being mean. I'm also a grammar nazi which doesn't help. Another reason that every single award is important in my eyes is because I'm on the Pokémon Project, so every award is an uphill struggle. Anyway :P, thank you for taking it so well (I've had people scream at me in my 3 day history of doing this XD) Thanks much Highway 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly no hard feelings from me; I had never seen that article before, so it's nothing to me if it doesn't get GA status - you might hear from the guy who wrote it though... :)

Anyway, good luck and happy editing! Kafziel 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever he gives me I've had worse ; ) I have actually been screamed at, only for the article to be failed by someone else in about 10 minutes. Those are the breaks, Highway 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you want?

Excuse me, but what is your problem? I didn't do anything to you! I don't have to login every single time I make an edit. This is my ip address and I'm not a sock puppet. Please stop accusing me and stop saying bad things to me. Also, YES, i understand about the tagging and i won't edit again, but i will be adding my opinion on the matter in the discussion page. Ok? - Zarbon

I didn't say you have to log in every time you edit, but I know you tend to switch back and forth and I wanted to make sure you saw the warnings I was leaving for you, to give you a chance to not get blocked.

As for not doing anything to me... well, every time you vandalize a page from The Shield, I'm the one who has to fix it. It gets a little old after a while. Kafziel 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing. I just hate the tagging. It makes the pages look extremely unprofessional. So whatever the problem is, I hope its resolved soon. Margos Dezerian happens to be my alltime favorite character from the shield, and he is EXTREMELY important to the plotline. same with terry. the strike team is NOT the only important characters. the people i created pages for, deserve their own pages. that's not vandalism. And I'm chatting it out in the talk page like you said. - Zarbon

Believe me - it's not the tags that make those pages look unprofessional. They look terrible all by themselves.

The problem here is that you don't listen to anyone. Removing the tags is vandalism, and it's too bad if you think the pages look bad with them. That's what all those warnings were about. But you just don't get it. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Speaking of talking to a brick wall, how many times have you been warned about taking that picture off of your user page? Others have removed it, numerous people have posted messages to you about it, and it has even been deleted. But you keep uploading it and putting it back on. The reasons for not having it has been explained plenty of times, and there is nothing you can say or do that will make it okay. You need to take it off - now - or you will be blocked for that and you can forget all about the discussion on The Shield pages. Kafziel 13:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Family Tree Pages

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me. I noticed there are a number of "family tree" pages up (they are linked to on Zarbon's page). They are all, uneccessary, contain false info, and do not even count as family trees. I put one up for deletion, but was hoping you or someone else could nominate the others (I'm not 100% fluent in how do to things like that yet and don't want to mess things up). Your vote would also be appreciated.--Orion Minor 09:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible Image Violation

Umm...I noticed that Zarbon put up a pic of DBZ Zarbon on his page again. This time it uses an image of the character from one of the video games (http://www.jeux-france.com/Webmasters/Images/3962520050625_194028_4_big.jpg). Isn't that still a violation?

I've left him a note. Kafziel 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

zarbon

(I realize now I should have started at the bottom) I found your page because I have had a similar run-in with zarbon. In my opinion, he is ruining episode summaries of The Sopranos, making them look like they were written by drooling school girls. His contributions lack an encyclopedic point of view and thus harm the website as a whole. He should create fan-pages for his favorite characters. Brendan Filone is a character who appeared alive in two episodes of The Sopranos and probably had about 20 minutes of airtime. But he wants those shows to glorify him. And whenever one of his "favorite" characters (he has about 4 or 5) appears in a show, he arranges the guest list so that person is on top. Just childish things. Here are two of my favorite Zarbon replies for reasons for his edits:

• "it doesn't matter. will that one line kill you? No. But it will kill me if its not there. I live for Brendan Filone."

• "I live for Brendan Filone since he's literally my alltime favorite character so when I say I'm sure, I'm sure. Hope I cleared it up for you"

Does Wikipedia have a policy about banning people who just provide BAD content. Even if they don't do anything wrong, shouldn't there be some kind of "you must be taller than this line" rule about providing content here.

HPuppet

He probably is already using another sock puppet. He seems to be on a fixed IP address User:64.95.38.193 so a Check User against this IP will decloak him. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Brendan Filone

Let me start by saying I am new here and have been trying to feel my way around this place. I almost threw my hands up and walked away after my encounters with Zarbon. But then I saw how much trouble he/she has caused for everyone else and was happy to see people like you taking care of a lot of the issues created by him/her. Yesterday I saw how you were able to clean up a lot of The Shield content, like removing specific pages devoted to minor characters (I have never seen The Shield, so I will have to assume you were right). I would like to request that you do the same thing with The Sopranos. Zarbon has created character-specific pages for minor players like Brendan Filone simply out of personal admiration. Nothing about Brendan justifies having a page devoted to him, and the rational you had for removing The Shield pages applies to Brendan too. There are many more important characters who would deserve individual pages before Brendan. HBO's character guide lists 35 players (both living and dead) who make up the principle cast for the show's six seasons, with no mention of Mr. Filone. As someone who cares about promoting an accurate account of this series, I can't accept this attention given to a menial character. All of the Brendan content suggests the pages were written not by scholars of the show, but rather by cheerleaders who should instead be writing fan pages.

I am only asking you to take care of this because I lack the knowledge (and maybe the authority) to do it myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleymullins (talk • contribs)

I see what you mean. Compared with the other characters at List of characters from The Sopranos, he should have one or two sentences at most under "Tertiary characters". Well, I'll tell you what - I'll tag the articles and post the initial suggestion, but I know he's going to take it personally since it's coming from me. I suggest that you write to other Sopranos contributors and ask them to weigh in on the talk page, because it won't work if you and I are the only ones supporting it. Kafziel 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to thank you really quickly Kafziel. You patience and contribution in this matter has been great. I was playing with the idea of putting a merge tag but was afraid of seemingly "attacking" Zarbon, given that I had nominated his family tree articles for deletion. It's people like him that can show the rougher edges of Wikipedia, but you have managed to display the best aspects of the community. Thanks. --Orion Minor 15:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the list called "teriary characters" after I posted this initial message, and I came to the same conclusion you did: Brendan belongs there. Wesleymullins

Who do I talk to?

Who do I talk to about a consistent vandal? User Kinokos has been vandalising pages left and right. The guide for vandalism said to put a warning on his page, but there's nothing else I can do. Am I supposed to forward his name to someone? Lastly, just what is the counter vandalism unit? Is it simply a declaration of intent to stop vandals?--Orion Minor 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Once you have posted the last warning ({{test4}}), if he vandalizes again you can report him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That will usually get you a fairly quick response, and he can be blocked. The first penalty is usually light, just a few hours or a day, and then it gets heavier each time he gets reported again.

The Counter Vandalism unit doesn't have any absolute requirements except that you never vandalize pages, and members usually patrol the Recent changes list to fix pages as soon as they are vandalized. It can be time consuming and stressful, since you tend to end up in situations like I am in with Zarbon right now, and you don't get a lot of appreciation for doing it (thanks for the note of thanks, by the way), but I think it is worth it. Kafziel 16:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Thank you for uploading Image:Samadams.jpg, it's a great image. I suggest though that any new free images you create yourself that are not somehow English-specific be uploaded to commons.wikimedia.org rather than en.wikipedia.org, that way all the projects can benefit from them right away without duplication. NTK 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a plan. I've never uploaded anything to the commons before, so I'll go check that out. Kafziel 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Zarbon socks #8, #9, and #10

I noticed that you tagged #8 and #9, and I just tagged #10 (the talk page, at least). Shouldn't each of these ban evasions warrant a reset and/or extension of the block on his account? Even the puppetmaster tag on his userpage says that ban evasion will result in the ban resetting. 4.226.60.226 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It should. I requested that, but we're running a check on the IP addresses first to confirm that they are sockpuppets (which might result in a permanent ban). This is likely to be an ongoing problem for a while, at least, so thanks for your help. Kafziel 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the situation. To try to help, I attempted to translate some Zarbonspeak into English, which mostly consisted of deleting half the text and replacing charming phrases such as "went down and began doing the dirty" with "had sex". I'm sure there's a ton of this low-quality text scattered around Wikipedia which badly needs to be cleaned up; attempting to salvage Zarbon's contributions is probably going to be a grueling task but I can't stand the thought of leaving things like this on Wikipedia.4.89.246.187 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, Kafziel/archive1!
	...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello Kafziel/archive1. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Major edit

Greetings to Kafziel. As you may know by now I have added more history and even some trivia to the Diamonds' page. Something that may concern you personally, I have elimated the "Due to racism frase. The Diamonds probably took more than their share of blame for doing covers. If you are familiar with the record industry, it would be extremely rare for the company not to tell the artist what to record, and this is still true today. This was the case for the Diamonds. They were simply doing what they were told and I feel this frase unfairly links them with racism. I also have notice the word "racism" is not mentioned in the extensive Wikipedia page on "cover version", or even on the Mercury Records page, where I feel it is more appropiate. Having said that, you certainly have the right to change it back. Since you ave been kind in helping me I felt you derserved a explanation. min7th 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the wording, as it was, linked the Diamonds to racism. But if you interpreted it that way, then others could, too, so it's fine with me if you want to leave it out. It was just meant to explain the record companies' need for those covers to be performed, the reason for which was trying to get around discrimination. To be fair, the Diamonds do pop up on nearly every web page or article discussing the unfairness of marginalizing black artists by using white artists to cover their songs in the 50s. If the article is going to be balanced, it should have a section discussing those criticisms, but you are right that it should be more clear that racism was not the motive of the Diamonds themselves. Kafziel 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a good man Charlie Brown!--min7th 01:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Zarbon actually stayed quiet for an entire week

Surprisingly, I haven't spotted any more obvious Zarbon socks since has block was reset on the 11th. It's set to expire today, so you may wish to keep an eye open for a possible return to business as usual. 4.226.60.187 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like, if nothing else, that whole fiasco brought him to the attention of a few different administrators, so hopefully I won't have to be the only "bad guy" and everyone can just focus on improving the articles. I will be watching, of course. Kafziel 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

alright, i am trying my best to bring things up for discussion before moving them. Kafziel, i really wish i would have your support. I mean, it's not much to ask for. Of course I am referring to Brendan Filone in the discussion page. If you could somehow help me by voting for him as a secondary character, I would greatly appreciate it. - Zarbon

I don't agree that he should be considered a secondary character. He was in two episodes out of several seasons of shows. I know you like the way he died, but I don't see it as particularly memorable; he went down without a fight (Moe Green was no tough guy, so the comparison doesn't really help). I don't really consider trading cards to be evidence one way or another, because entertainment merchandising is often way off base. Besides which, if you think he died in an excellent way, then shouldn't you be a fan of Mikey Palmice, the one who killed him? He's the one who shot him through the eye. All Brendan did was sit there.

What I do agree with is that the list could have been kept long without separating all the different sections into their own lists (which I mentioned to Opark77 while he was doing it) and I also agree that if anyone is to be moved, maybe it should have been the more minor characters and not the DiMeo family. But now that the work is done, it doesn't look so bad. It still needs a little cleaning up as far as the formatting goes (links should not be in section headings) but it's not so bad.

It seems to me like you're just looking to get your way on something, no matter what it is. If Terry Crowley can't have his own page, then you think Antwon Mitchell shouldn't, and if people vote that he should, then you think Brendan Filone should too, and people vote not to, then you think he should be listed as a secondary character, and if he can't, then you think the list should be formatted how you want it. No matter what, you're arguing about something. If it's not article content, it's image copyrights and sources. You lose one argument and immediately move on to the next one, without ever just trying to go with the flow and get along with people. Why? Kafziel 14:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

normally i'd agree with every single thing you said. but technically, and if for anyone else, i'd drop the matter very quickly. i pretty much am not following up on any other person as you can see. i let it go with margos and terry. The only person who completely and totally defines the sopranos in juxtaposition with the godfather is Brendan Filone. If you can help me this once, i will try my very best to comply with all other things. i know for a fact that i won't revert anymore. i am swearing to you. its just that i am a fan of Mr. Filone for 7 years now and nobody has made a stronger impression on me in the history of onscreen television. - Zarbon

If my support in making him a secondary character will satisfy you, then I will support you. That doesn't guarantee it will succeed, because it will probably just be the two of us against everyone else, but I will cast my vote for you. Kafziel 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a Kinky shout-out

I'm just writing to tell you you rule. Specifically, you rule for picking The Kinks' "Waterloo Sunset" as the #1 all-time greatest song on Rentastrawberry's top 10 page. Perusing Straw's archives, it looks like only five people have put "Waterloo Sunset" anywhere within their top 10: two at number nine, one at number four, one at number two, and yours at number one. Alas, I am the one who included "Waterloo Sunset" at #2, behind only The Undertones' "Teenage Kicks". It was virtually a dead heat between the two songs, really, as they are the only two perfect rock and roll songs ever, and if I could have, I would have listed it as a tie. In the end I picked "Teenage Kicks" on personal resonance, though that's virtually a dead heat as well. To conclude, anyone who likes "Waterloo Sunset" rules in my book, so...rock on! StarryEyes 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just had another look at my list, and I'm still happy with it, so I guess that means I put enough time into it. If I had another ten, I'd probably have more stuff from 1955-1965, the early days. (For example, when I was making my list I felt bad leaving Chuck Berry out, and it's good to see you remembered him.) Rock on! Kafziel 14:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken

I just saw a bunch of content being removed with the edit summary "reverting vandalism"... I was really more trying to explain why I'd reverted in error. Consider giving more descriptive edit summaries, I know you aren't required to, but it helps avoid misunderstandings when doing things like blanking a lot of content. --W.marsh 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Date linking

You've unlinked a load of dates in Thiepval using AWB. This means that they won't now format according to user preferences. I believe all dates should be linked so that formatting occurs. Cheers, Arcturus 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The only dates I unlinked were years that were there by themselves (thus linking them is pointless) or dates that would not format properly anyway. I am very careful not to unlink properly formatted dates (Like June 30 1977) but things like November 2005 or simple years like 1918 are not improved by linking. See the manual of style entry, here. Kafziel 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your unlinking policy. However, if you check the edit history of the Thiepval article you'll see that three dates of the style 1 July have been unlinked. Arcturus 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry about that; I've gone back and fixed them. Kafziel 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star sockpuppet accusation

Hi, Kafziel. I am wondering if you could elaborate on the evidence by which you placed a "suspected sockpuppet of Zarbon" tag on Wiki-star's user page. I have answered a number of Wiki-star's questions at the Help Desk, and consequently looked at a number of his edits, and unless he is disingenuously running a complete "I'm a new editor" scam here -- which I very seriously doubt -- I think the accusation is unfounded. On the other hand, if you have a smoking gun or have had CheckUser performed, please let us know that too. Otherwise I think you should remove the template from Wiki-star's user page and from the list of Zarbon socks. Cheers, MCB 22:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; the CheckUser said it is likely not the same person, but by then he had already removed the sockpuppet tag from his own page so I just took him off of my watchlist. I didn't realize someone else put the tag back on. I'm still not convinced that it's not Zarbon, but I didn't intend for him to still be tagged. Not for the time being, at least. I'll remove it again. Kafziel 23:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote this before you posted. It may still be useful, I'm not sure.) I agree with User:MCB. I know nothing about User:Zarbon, but I have encountered User:Wiki-star at the help desk (he has made many edits there ([3]) - something that Zarbon has never done.) He has been here for two and a half months and made over a thousand edits. If it is a sockpuppet then it's a very elaborate one. --Cherry blossom tree 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Wiki-star has made a lot of edits. Without going too far into his history, I'll wager a guess that a great deal of them are image uploads without valid sources, edits to japanese animation articles, and arguments with other editors on talk pages. Evidently a lot of them are also help page edits, which stands to reason - Zarbon has never needed to ask anyone a question about anything, because he asks them as Wiki-star instead. Many of Wiki-star's questions mirror issues Zarbon has had; the two make the same grammatical and formatting mistakes, pick the same unreasonable fights, and show the same paranoia to anyone who questions their behavior. In my eyes, Wiki-star started that absurd and unheard-of habit of putting his user name before every post to try to make himself seem distinct from Zarbon.

Zarbon has shown how good he is at switching IP addresses and pretending to be someone he isn't and, fortunately for him, it's nearly impossible to get anything done around here when it comes to vandalism and sock puppetry. I certainly don't intend to hound Wiki-star about it, though, if there's even the slightest possibility that I'm wrong. And, in fact, Zarbon hasn't been disruptive for the past day or two, so hopefully the whole thing has died down. All I meant was that I'm keeping an eye on the situation. Kafziel 06:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Super -- thanks, Kafziel and Cbt. MCB 00:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

hi both, i originally didn't even know what sock puppetry was when i did it. but i didn't normally do sockpuppetry on purpose. i did it to avoid bans because i had no other way of editing. well, i am here to guarantee you that i am not wiki-star. i haven't opened any other user names, i only used different ip's to get around the problems. and as for my rfc notice, i am sorry for blatantly saying that i won't stop "vandalism" but as you can see, i did stop that. so for all intent and purposes, what is the point of the rfc notice. on another note, the discussion page on my user page is extremely long. i don't know how to minimize it into one place, maybe you can help me with that. i don't care to know how to do it, so when i delete the stuff, another user always puts it back, so i want to know if you can archive it all without removing it, etc. - Zarbon

You don't seem to have read the RfC; it's not just about Brendan Filone. It's about your rudeness to other editors, your refusal to listen to others (on Dragon Ball Z articles as well), your uploading tons of photos that violate copyright laws, and, yes, your use of sock puppets. Not being able to edit when you are blocked is not, as you say, a "problem". Not being able to edit when you are blocked is exactly what is supposed to happen, and using different IPs to edit is against the rules and will result in further punishments.

I have archived your talk page for you. Before you forget about the contents, however, go into the archive and read the messages that have been posted to you in the past. Take some time off from editing articles and read the guidelines that have been given to you over and over. Notability guidelines. The manual of style. Civility. Consensus. Read the warnings about copyright violations, and stop uploading stolen pictures. Learn about copyrights and the fair use policy. Be more considerate of other editors and listen to what they say on the discussion pages. Follow consensus. I will admit that at this point, you have a long road ahead of you if you are looking to be respected in the community. But it's not impossible.

Listen more, edit less. Don't just think twice before you say or do something. Think three or four times. A lot of your problems will be solved if you take the time to listen and learn. Kafziel 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

yes kafziel. i will try my best to redeem myself and i wholeheartedly mean it when i say it. I will definitely not sockpuppet or vandalize, and i will insert correct information with images. i will take all your advice and apply it in corresponding places. thanks again. - Zarbon

Welcome to VandalProof

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kafziel/archive1! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Eagle talk 08:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note, to contact me you need to leave a message on my page, sorry about that, but I can't watch every user page I welcome.

Marijuana Wiki

Hi there,

I see that you are a pro-Cannabis Wikipedian so I hope this will be of some interest to you.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Congrats

Thanks. All the best to you. ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

page link on officer, McCoy

did you look at the reason removing the link? there are references that dont have a reference page for checking the facts. look at the content on the discussion page, one person is calling another a liar and a troll in the link. is this how wikipedia works? you remove something without looking at the reasons!

I did look at your reasons, and they're not valid. If a page is messed up, that doesn't mean you unlink it from other pages. You are bound to find articles on Wikipedia that do not properly cite their references and contain arguments on the discussion pages. That is perfectly normal. The main Charles Whitman article has been a work in progress for quite some time, and the articles that it links to will eventually get their turn as well. Removing links makes it harder for good editors to find the page that is having problems, and it could sit out there forever without being fixed. Kafziel 21:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

your right! 'waterloo sunset' is my favorite two

Notice you're from Orange County, been there a few times when I lived in Mamaroneck & Rye in Westchester. Beautiful country, I know Bear Mountain is up the Hudson, crossed the Tappan Zee many times after visiting Sleepy Hollow, ever been in the "Old Dutch Church"? The grounds are amazing, but the company is, forgive the pun, "dead"! We have similar tastes in music, actually, let me guess, "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits is on your list of favorites. If not, it should be! Semper Fidelis!

Actually, Brothers in Arms didn't make that particular list because it was classic rock only, and calling songs from the 80s "classic rock" makes me feel old. :) It would certainly be on my all-time top ten, though. Semper Fi'. Kafziel 03:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, I have a son your age, he likes a lot of my old rock stuff. Of course, I must admit, all music comes and goes with each generation. Some songs remain classics though from all eras. Sometimes music that is classic gets updated, even into rap! I'm really more of a blues man myself, that's why I like Brothers in Arms, an ecletic blend of blues and rock. I still can't figure out why P.F. Sloans "Eve of Destruction" sung by Barry McGuire hasn't resurrected in these times, it was an anthem in the sixties. "This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine..........."

neologism

Hello there,

To start I just want to say that I respect you and all your wikipedia work. Now, I would just like to comment on your suggested deletion of my "weenis" article. Though part of it was written in jest, it is a true slang term of today and to many this article is a worthwhile read. Yes, it is a neologism but plenty of neologisms have articles on wikipedia. I'm fairly sure that the word "neologism" is a neologism itself. It is humorous but it is not a hoax. I urge you to reconsider your deletion request.

Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.108.144 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but even if it was a real word, it still wouldn't belong here; this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Kafziel 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT VANDALISM

You really need to check your sources. My edits to "The Shield" were not vandalism. Yours are. Stop this sh*t right now. CoolKatt number 99999 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooooooh. Or what?

Discuss your reasons for screwing up the categories or get blocked. That's really all there is to it. Kafziel 02:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[4] This help you? And this is no screw up! CoolKatt number 99999 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't explain one bit why you are messing with the categories. Kafziel 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WRONG. I am NOT MESSING WITH THE CATEGORIES. Now, stop calling my edits vandalism. CoolKatt number 99999 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is vandalism. So I ask again. Or what? Kafziel 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I checked my sources. 2. You'll see. CoolKatt number 99999 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, by this time you could have explained what it is you're doing in English. Kafziel 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I check my sources, and then I add the category based on my sources (in this case, IMDb) CoolKatt number 99999 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See? Now wasn't that easy?

Now all you have to do is explain to me why you added a bar to the link for [[Category:The Shield]].[5] Kafziel 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the main page in the category CoolKatt number 99999 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. See? Isn't it nice when you can talk like a civilized person? For all the yelling and threats on my talk page here, you could have been blocked already. Keep that in mind next time. Kafziel 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Looks like your user page has been vandalized, now. Welcome to the club.  :) Mangojuice^talk 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! I feel honored. All the vandal fighting I've done and it finally happened!

Thanks for the revert. Kafziel 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Invasion: Featured!

Well, I've been off for a while...just moved across the US and haven't been able to get around much online. Glad to see the invasion article got FA status...makes a guy feel good inside. Wanted to congratulate you on that, I know you put a good bit of work into it. Enjoy your break and take care. The Artak 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothernmost Settlements

Dear User Kafziel! Why did your remove the information given on the (abandoned) village Etah (NW-Greenland) which has been the northernmost village of the world up until a few years? Just because it is abandoned? Eureka also shows up with 0 population in this list... Greetings from Munich/Germany, K. Badenheuer

Sorry, it was unclear whether it was vandalism or not. In the future, it would be easier for others to tell what you have done if you fill in the edit summary field to explain your changes. I have re-inserted the information. Kafziel 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reaction. Maybe I should continue the work by writing an article about Etah. K.B.

USMC Portal help

Someone has decided our portal deserves to be deleted. Could use your vote here. If there are others you know that can give us a vote please put the word out. This is just like when they had to defend the Corps against Truman in 1949. Thanks in advance.--Looper5920 11:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe FAC

You have showed interest in the absinthe article and I thought I would let you know I have decided to put it up for Featured article nomination. FAC Absinthe -- Ari 00:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Idit Harel Caperton

Thanks for your comments on the peer review a month or so ago. If I can ever be of help to you, please let me know. youngamerican (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. The article looks great, and congrats on making GA status! Kafziel 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Body Count page

You recently reverted this page to a less complete, outdated and erroneous old version, calling the additions and changes I'd made "vandalism". This is nonsense. I added much more up to date descriptions from the project's website. The ones that were there before (now back again thanks to you) are outdated and _inaccurate_.

I only deleted one or two completely and demonstrably inaccurate claims, and a couple long outdated claims: that the Lancet study is "the official estimate" ("official" how?), and the Media Lens claim that IBC is a "Western Media Body Count" which is demonstrably false when looking at their sources list, which includes dozens of non-Western media sources.

Other than this, I left most of the content alone, just added to it. (The page looked like it mostly hadn't been touched since 2003 and some of the stuff there was clearly long out-dated). And I added a whole new section detailing recent criticisms and responses from IBC, which I tried to present in a value-judgment-neutral manner, unlike others who came after me and "vandalized" that section adding in their value-judgments about the IBC response (along with other false information).

The page you reverted to is far inferior to anyone wanting to know about the project than the one resulting from the changes I'd made, which is far more informative and accurate. I hope you'll reconsider this move, which I would consider more "vandalism" on your part than anything I'd done.

If you would prefer that wiki readers be misinformed by wholly inaccurate and long outdated material, by all means call my contributions "vandalism" and revert back to the misinformation. If you would prefer that wiki readers have an accurate and informative page to read, which actually gets the facts right, please allow my changes to stand.

I could not find a single constructive, unbiased edit made to that article in the past month. I did not, however, call your contributions vandalism; the program I used to revert the edits is VandalProof, but I did not issue any warnings to you or anyone else. I will take another look at the article and I may re-insert anything accurate and/or useful that I might have overlooked, but for the most part it was nothing but 30 days of catty back and forth between two anonymous editors. Kafziel 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. The edit I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_Body_Count_project&oldid=51660666

was not in response to any other anonymous user. It was an update filled with constructive and informative additions (current description from the IBC database, rather than outdated and inaccurate one; addition of value-judgment-neutral section on recent crticism, with new links to these pieces and IBC's response..etc.)

And I deleted a few outright false sentences, such as those I described earlier, and an outright false description of IBC.

I tried to make this as value-judgment-neutral and objectively accurate as possible. It was not in response to anybody in particular, just a long-outdated page which also contained inaccuracies. Someone else then came in and added (over what I'd done) biased value-judgments and catty attacks on the project and its "founder john sloboda" (again inaccurate, JS is only a co-founder and he didn't say what the anonymous poster added). I just reverted these back to what i had written, but i did leave a couple of the additions made by that person, but tried to remove the catty and factually inaccurate points.

If you really examine my original revision (linked above), you should see that it is 1) more accurate than the previous one you reverted back to which has several falsehoods, and 2) far more informative about the project.

To clarify what I had edited, the page you reverted to states: "For official estimate of number of casualties see Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

This is false an inappropriate for an IBC page. The Lancet survey is one study, and how is it the "official estimate"? Aside from that inaccuracy, this line is no more appropriate than adding "For official estimate see Iraq Body Count" to the wiki page on the Lancet study.

Next it has an outdated and false description of IBC: "This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation."

The IBC db includes no deaths from "inadequate health care or sanitation". It only includes violent civilian deaths. That phrase was on the IBC page for a time at the beginning of the occupation phase of the war, but it was changed and it is simply not true. So, I changed this to the current description from the db, which is accurate.

I also added one more stated "aim" in the "projects aims" section

I also added more (entirely accurate) information to the "Method" section

I also left in the previous stuff about "pro-Iraqi source, and the Allies" which makes no sense except in the context of the original 2003 invasion, but makes no sense now. The wording of that part really should be changed at least, but I decided to leave it alone.

I then added a section on "Criticism" which presented the facts in a value-neutral fashion. Critics have argued X. IBC has responded arguing Y. Then with links to these pieces.

I feel this vastly improved the page and made it more accurate and informative, while being un-biased. The person who came after me began with the opinionated and catty additions, ie: the IBC response was a "weak response", "the founder" John Sloboda smeared the whole anti-war movement..etc. etc.

I hope you will consider my original revision as a valid, informative, and unbiased update to the page, and not hold me or it responsible for someone else deciding to add opinionated smears afterward.

I'm content to leave it as you have it now. I still think the article has a lot of information it shouldn't—if its title is "Iraqi Body Count project", it should be about the project itself, not mirroring all of the project's information and conclusions—but I'm willing to let it go. There are certainly worse pages out there. Kafziel 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm not averse to changes. What parts in the latest one do you think should not be there?

I don't think their findings should be mirrored here; the body count section should be removed. The count itself is disputed, as is noted in the article. The rest of the information in that section (where they get their info, how it is organized, etc.) should be used as references in the article or discarded. The article is about the project, not to be used to reprint the project's results. If they are relevant to specific aspects of the project, they should be footnotes. If not, they shouldn't be there.

Again, I'm not going to insist on the changes, but I recommend them. Kafziel 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but note that the "body count" section was there before I got there, and was in the edition to which you reverted. Someone else put it there long before me, and I didn't touch it. And I'm not sure what the count being disputed has to do with it. Any studies of controversial subjects like war deaths are usually disputed ones, yet most pages on such studies tend to include presentations of their results. So I'm not sure I follow the reasoning.

I say again, I never blamed you for the content or accused you of vandalism.

I understand.

As for the other pages with body counts, most use official government sources. There are, of course, exceptions to that but, as my mother used to say, two wrongs do not make a right. I'm not interested in what inferior pages are doing in comparison; I am only interested in what will make a good article.

With all respect (and I'm not sure you even care to be discussing this any further) this doesn't make any sense. Any page that is itself *about* a particular body count would seem ridiculous if it doesn't describe the body count. That's what the project is. Another example of another Iraqi deaths study (again, not official or government source) is the Lancet study. The first thing on the page is its conclusions, and it goes on to give detailed descriptions of all its conclusions. You don't believe it should do this? Is it an "inferior page"? Should the descriptions of its findings be removed?

Of course, it could also be argued (and in many cases it would be true) that government sources are not to be trusted, either. But whether they are trustworthy or not, no one has more unrestricted access to personnel files, casualty reports, and front-line information.

Seems like a false dichotomy. It could just be argued that all studies into controversial matters as these are un-trusted by some, and that it is not clear what your point is about "trust" or why it's relevant.

It basically boils down to the fact that this article is not about the Iraq War, it is about the Iraq body count project. Casualty lists belong in the article about the war itself. If the results of this project are not sufficiently notable or trustworthy to be used as a source in that article, then they should not be here at all. Kafziel 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked and it is noted in the Iraq war article and the Iraq war Casualties article, along with other non-official/non-government studies, which is pretty much all there is out there on this topic. Your view here just doesn't make sense to me. The project *is* a casualty list. Sure, the Body Count section in the article could be condensed, but that's what the project is. You seem to feel the article describing a body count should not describe the count. This just doesn't make sense.

But this is not an article describing a body count. It's an article describing a body count project. Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 is an article about a body count, and that is where (if anywhere) this information should be. It's not about a website, it's about a body count.

When describing a website, it's not necessary to mirror the information from that site. The Wall Street Journal article doesn't list today's stock values. The eBay article doesn't list all the latest auctions. The Fantasy baseball article doesn't show the players' standings. Describe what they do, how they do it, perhaps why they do it. Don't list all of their results.

By the way, please sign your discussions by typing four ~ in a row at the end of your message. That will automatically add a signature with the date and time. Kafziel 12:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:River people

I've reverted the move, and applied move protection to allow consensus to form on talk page first. Cheers, Petros471 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Kafziel 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Marie-Chantal Miller

Of course I am assuming good faith. It is not an assumption of bad faith to list transgressions and misrepresentations there where such took place. ObRoy 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You immediately accused him of POV edits to the article, when he has done no such thing. As you can see from the discussion page, I didn't understand what he did, either, so I asked questions and listened to the answers. What he did made sense. If you think the "princess" bit should be removed, you are welcome to open your own move request. Kafziel 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In my understanding, it is POV to affirm a title of pretension to a pretender. The fact remains that he made an edit, namely a move, when a request for move was under discussion, and moved the article to a location which now says "crown princess".
Personally, I find it somewhat hypocritical at this your situation not to warn him being possibly with malice when immediately accusing someones of "move against agreement..." ObRoy 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

He explained that he moved it because it had been unfairly moved in the first place. The burden is on the first person who wants to move it, not on the rest of the community after it has been unfairly moved. Now that it is back to where it was before, a request can be started to move it to a new location. Kafziel 21:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I find something to be somewhat hypocritical. Anyway, the original page was at Marie-Chantal Miller (parhaps it would be fairest to return it there). It never was at the current location (which is POV in my opinion) more than three days (which took place in August 2005). Therefore I also find it rather incredible that you explain that certain move having been "unfair". ObRoy 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Habsburgs

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. You are welcome to check those uncles and nieces for example using [6] ObRoy 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This note was left by ObRoy on his first day at Wikipedia, as retaliation for my posting a warning to him. He seems to be improving after some further discussion on his talk page.

travail en perruque

Good evening. If you are interested by the subject, you can read [Michel Anteby, Sociology in labor] where there is few lines in english. --Barbetorte 16:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

you welcomed me?

you welcomed me! seems good but i have been here for a long time and then when i tried to add some of my own content, i registered, that was sometime ago but since that didnt work so didnt add more. I still have my right to say what I want and I did in there. I also have my historic study and Family legacy to backout what I claim.

That "welcome" was a notice that your statements will likely not be considered. You do have the right to say what you want, but the only past edits you have are from vandalizing the page in question. That would explain why they "didn't work" and why they will continue to not work. Kafziel 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cheesor

Yeah, I can't figure out what the exact policy this guy is breaking...but he's posted various angry things in talk pages. Most notably a conversation titled "DON'T POST THIS AGAIN OR I'LL KILL YOU" on the Halo 3 page. I'd post warnings, but I'm on dialup for a while and it takes me 5 minutes to load (or edit) a page...so I really can't do much on wikipedia right now. --Orion Minor 02:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiki-star

I'm having a problem with the user Wiki-star. now i wouldn't bring this up to argument normally, but this fellow is the same one that was suspected of revert vandalism on more than one occasion. he also does this ip dodging and sock puppeting, etc. recently, i made a visual adjustment in the buu page from dbz. now, regardless of what it is, it's a visual adjustment. this user keeps reverting and saying that he doesn't care if he's banned, etc. i don't have the power to enfore bans, so i was wondering if you could take a look at his constant revert. he says that he will just keep deleting the visual addition because he had added his own pictures earlier, regardless of the fact that my addition is a better representation. he just wants to push it because he wants his upload to remain. please help me out, you know that i'm trying hard and i no longer want to get into a revert war and this wiki-star fellow has been brought up for discussion on more than one occasion. - Zarbon

I appreciate your desire to avoid an edit war, but that article has far too many pictures in it already. 38 copyrighted pictures does not qualify as fair use.

The movie you are trying to add to the page is copyrighted as well. I do not think it should be there. However, if it is any consolation to you, I think most of Wiki-star's pictures will need to be removed, too. I'm not going to do it, because I have history with both you and Wiki-star, but I have asked for input from other editors on the situation so someone may be there to comment on it shortly. Kafziel 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• ah thank you. seriously, the response i got from him is that he will keep deleting it and that he doesn't care about vandalizing, etc. he thinks that he owns the page or something and keeps reverting everyone else's input. thanks again for letting other members see into it. thank you. - Zarbon

Yellowcard

Hi, there! I saw that you've contributed to the Yellowcard page. I've been working hard all weekend to get it into an encyclopedia-worthy article, and I think we're almost there!

There's a short list of things that still need some work at the bottom of the talk page. If you could take a look at it, maybe add more things to do, or clean up whatever you see needs work, I would sure appreciate it.

Thanks for your help. Have an awesome day! Cathryn 09:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Please see WP:CHU. --TKK3 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the account has been completely shut down, the administrator who did that can have the user page deleted. The situation seems to be resolved, but for future reference, contact an administrator directly instead of tagging a user page for deletion while using a different account. Good luck, and happy editing! Kafziel 05:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Sands

Not Sands because no invasion took place. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

afd

Thank you for agreeing to disagree, too. Behold, civility! ;) --Fang Aili ^talk 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

I noticed that you had a dispute with the above user regarding The Shield, and he was quite uncivil towards you. Currently, CoolKatt is waging a war against me for close to the same reasons. He has even threatened me with an RfC. If it comes to that, I would like for you to back up my claims of CoolKatt's uncivil behavior. For my side of our dispute, see my talk page. Rollosmokes 08:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously his request for comment didn't have the desired effect. He's really good at being totally obnoxious until he's about to be punished, and then begging for mercy very convincingly. He'll take the incivility right up to the absolute limit before backing down and claiming he won't do it again. But he always does. I'd suggest mediation, or maybe even a request for arbitration. Kafziel 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try the mediation route, but now CoolKatt has taken it to another level. He has filed a Request for Comment against me. (sarcastically) I've never been so scared in my life!! Rollosmokes 07:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks like mediation is your best bet. That should help cool things down. Good luck! Kafziel 11:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Investigation and Arbitration

Based on your past dispute against CoolKatt, I've decided to inform you of this:

On top of a ongoing investigation pending against CK, I have now filed a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration as one more attempt to settle this. I did this after learning that he filed an investigation request against me, and for me this was the proverbial last straw. Please feel free to comment on it. Rollosmokes 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Colin Powell

Your recent edit to Colin Powell was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 20:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a weird one. Obviously, Tawkerbot is a little tired...[7]. Kafziel 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish

I am tottaly outraged with this stupid site, cause every time i write an artice it gets deleted as vandelism when it isnt it is ligetimate information which shouldnt have been deleated and that idot Zandarx should get a life as he keeps deleting my artice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01sbrightwell (talk • contribs)

He's not an administrator, so he can't be deleting it on his own. From the comments on your talk page, it looks like it was deleted after an agreement was reached between a group of other editors. If you're unsure about the reasons, try to talk it out on your talk page (or his). Remember that vandalism will only lead to you being blocked. Aside from the disagreement you have there, you seem to be off to a good start. Don't let this one issue ruin your experience. Just be patient, and his reasons will probably make more sense after you've learned the ropes. Kafziel 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks

For reverting vandalism on my user page. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And some friendly advice. Don't reply to the opposes. -- Samir धर्म 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I didn't want to reply, but the tips page said you should. I agree with you, and I'll just shut up. Thanks for the advice. Kafziel 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my page too. The vandal was annoying me. --Zandarx ^talk 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to help. Hope things work out. Kafziel 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep

That is the answer to the question which you recently asked me. If you don't remember, well, forget it. I am deleting off of my page, just my preference. Thanks for the tips on the categories, I went ahead and made a pay subcategory. Looks like you do some good work here. Regards. Just for kicks, you may want to checkout Eddiedonovan page, cheers Isaac Crumm 04:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion

I made a request for Invasion to be placed on the front page, so maybe Raul'l put it up some time in the near future. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man

Dear Kafziel, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it. Really feel bad about the opposes on your Rfa, seemed quite unfair to me. Take care man and if you need any admin help, feel free to leave me a message or e-mail me if urgent -- Samir धर्म 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sox/Yanks (alphabetical order)

"The Yanks did dominate the American League during those years."

The Yankee "domination" of the AL is different from a direct team-team rivalry, true or not (And coming in second place is having been dominated? Silver medalists be damned!). The "Curse" and the Red Sox lack of championships is also different. For example, the 1967 World Series you could say involves the curse, but doesn't involve a Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. If it's all about championships, then 2003 is completely irrelevant because the Yankees lost, isn't it? If it's all about championships then games that have nothing to do with one team (1967 World Series, 2004 World Series, 2003 World Series) are still somehow related? It's team vs. team, not team shared statistics vs. team shared statistics.

The merits of second place are certainly debatable, but the 2003 championship isn't irrelevant in therms of the rivalry, because Boston beat the Yankees to get to the series. It might have been irrelevant if the Yankees were out of the running before the ALCS, but they weren't. The rivalry is much bigger than individual games; it does go to the record of each team. That's why Yankee fans don't feel the rivalry quite as strongly as Red Sox fans; they shrug it off, because the way they see it, they're still way ahead. Kafziel 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think "Yankee Domination" is an appropriate heading. Since this is only about the Red Sox - Yankees rivalry it is saying the Yankees dominated the Red Sox for 80+ years, which is simply not true. I think there has to be a more reasonable heading or that section doesn't need it's own heading to begin with.

Boston fans themselves have accused the Yankees of that very thing; of being an "evil empire" that buys world series wins and unfairly dominated the AL for a very long time. That's not something Yankee fans made up, that's something Red Sox fans insist on. It's a very important aspect of the rivalry. Calling a spade a spade here isn't intended to put the Sox down (and I don't think it does) - it's used simply to describe the atmosphere of the rivalry, and the feelings the Red Sox fans have felt about being marginalized for too long. Kafziel 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil

Good point, but remember, the guy is provoking those attacks, reverting facts which are 100% correct, so this gives anybody the right to call somebody a vandal idiot. Hope you agree but I understand your point about being civil, I've tried for last 2 weeks, he keeps on doing his garbage, looking for evidence that is only in his head... I am trying to be neutral to all the edits on wiki but of course certain things which can not be prooven, nobody can proove. If you are administrator give me your email.

My barnstar

Why thank you! I'm flattered! (And there are more photos to come. I really like Titicus Reservoir ... daresay I take that to picture peer review? Daniel Case 16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Velociraptor

Commented to your request. Would like to hear from you. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Iron Mike

Did you try to look at the Library of Congress or other such places (if accessible). Lincher 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I did try the Library of Congress, but the only thing they have listed is a guidebook to Parris Island - the "Iron Mike driving tour", named after the statue. It has some history, but the Parris Island newspaper story about the statue has everything from the guide and more. I own a lot of books on Marine Corps history, but when Iron Mike gets a mention it's never more than a caption under a photo. I reckon most o' them ol' soljers an mareens dint do so good on the reedin and ritin back in the twennies. :) Kafziel 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

{{WPMILHIST}}

Just a quick note: please don't subst: the tags, as they do get fairly regular updates. Kirill Lokshin 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! Kafziel 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool head

Look at the attacks that animal makes against me and you dont warn him, so you keep cool head!

I posted messages to both of you. Kafziel 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the mediation

Thank you for your efforts to keep wikipedia civil. The Kosovo war article is a problem, it needs cleaning and a lot of work and unfortunatly is often vandalized by annonimous users. But thank you for your efforts anyway. Mieciu K 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was frustrated because I saw no response from the wikipedia community. But now I'm feeling better so I will try not to respond to personall attacks. Unfortunatly the other editor concentrates more on personal attacks, than on argumentation and finding sources to support his opinions. I'm having doubts that he is a serbian nationalist/patriot because his actions looks very much like planned trolling. Unfortunatly we do not have a Serbia-related notice board on en wiki yet. Mieciu K 22:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Total Chaos at the Majin Buu Article

Well, Wiki-star is reaching that point where he starts to go out of control. I was hoping you or an administrator you know could help me out in talking sense into him. There is a straw poll going on at the Majin Buu article now. --Orion Minor 00:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the talk page is in flux; I don't see a poll, and history shows a lot of back and forth with deleted comments, etc. I don't really know what's been going on recently, but I will start keeping an eye on it. Kafziel 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles

I've made zero nil edits. That would primarily be User:Jeremygbyrne. Netscott 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize. The warning on your page was meant to be for 3RR. I will correct that. Kafziel 15:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm very aware of 3RR thank you. I think Jeremy is in violation though... Netscott 15:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No more than you; he has more edits to the page, but a lot of those are nil edits. Both of you have reverted three times. Kafziel 15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert my talk page again, once a message is responded to it can be deleted. Review the policy/guidelines if you must. Netscott 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is for messages, not warnings. Kafziel 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First you falsely accuse me, then you make a comment that I had already responded to here... what is the deal? Netscott 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not a comment. It was a warning. Different rules apply. I have posted the appropriate policy, along with a final warning, on your talk page. Kafziel 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so first you make a false accusation, then you fail to give equal admonishment (gee User:Jeremygbyrne's talk page is strangely devoid of a 3RR warning on your part). Can you not see the irony here? Are you assuming good faith? Netscott 15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you are citing a currently non-existent "policy/guidline" on my talk page? Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism In the future, don't do that per the the {{Proposed}} template:

File:Purple question mark.gif

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

{{shortcut}}

References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". Netscott 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Assume Good Faith. It's always just a matter of time before everyone brings that up. They argue and argue and argue, and when they finally see that they are violating policy, they try to pull the "assume good faith" card. Well, yes - I did assume good faith. That's why I warned you about 3RR, rather than just waiting silently for you to make a 4th revert. And that's why I warned you 3 times about removing warnings from your talk page. I've made no uncivil comments, and no remarks apart from the standard warnings. I assumed that you were well-intentioned but reading the wrong policy. If by "false accusation" you mean the nil edits warning, I've already apologized for my mistake there. If you hadn't already removed it, I would have.

Don't worry about Jeremy's talk page - worry about your own. And don't imply that I'm siding with him; I haven't done anything at all to support his side, and he was the first one to receive a warning in all of this.

I thought the page I linked to would be more clear and easier to find, but if you prefer to see an official policy, you can always see the entry for "Talk page vandalism" at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. It says the same thing. Kafziel 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your warning was essentially nonsense, by that time you can be sure that both of us were very aware of the situation (particularly in light of Jeremy's point editorial comments). It's ok though I've followed your lead and done a bit of warning myself. Netscott 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait... if my warning was nonsense, then why did you just post the same one on Jeremy Byrne's talk page more than an hour after his last edit? It's fine that you did, but clearly you don't think it's nonsense (unless you are just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which I doubt). Kafziel 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe in equal admonishments for equal behavior, you failed to abide by this principal so I picked up the slack. Did you not get my message about being aware of 3RR before you actually posted to my talk page? Netscott 16:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not. I didn't get the "you have new messages" notice until I had already posted the warning on your page. Nevertheless, a record of that warning also serves to show other editors that you have already been warned, and should remain visible for the time being. Kafziel 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you save the fact that User:Jeremygbyrne made edits that can easiliy be viewed as to have been made to "fool" a person into thinking he made a revert. I actually filed a 3RR report (since removed) based upon his nonsense "nil" edit, so you can imagine where my view is on this. Your lame (unbalanced) warning only complicated matters. Netscott 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it complicates anything. The fact of the matter is, if you really want me to say it, that I was too busy reverting your vandalism (removing my warnings from your talk page) to worry about warning anyone else. I was able to move on to you because he didn't vandalize the warning I left for him.

I don't expect you to apologize for your mistake in quoting the wrong policy - seems like nobody but me ever apologizes on here - but don't act like it was somehow uncalled-for or unfair. You reverted just as many times as he did, as part of a content dispute, and you got the warnings you deserved. Kafziel 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should all keep out noses clean. I'm not going to apologize for removing your warnings. In my view you had your chance to do a proper warning, you failed and apologized so you felt you had to do some equating (re: Jeremygbyrne's "nil" edit warning) and so you slapped up an alternate 3RR warning. When what you should have done was to warn both of us equally for 3RR and additionally warned Jeremygbyre for his "nil" edits, you failed to do this and therefore you lost my respect. Simple as that. Netscott 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that you can list any number of excuses for not apologizing. Everyone always does. But whether or not you respect me has nothing to do with whether or not you were wrong. Kafziel 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace Dollar

Hello! I left a new comment on the article's talk page. I am cool with waiting, I'm a patient man. Thanks for the quick response. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and that aside, I took a look at your user page. Thank you for serving our country. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:PerryReno.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PerryReno.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 22:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is tagged as public domain and states the source as the FBI's most wanted list. I'm not required to put a link to that. Kafziel 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

Oh, I agree; I'd rather have some sort of Cruft magnet for many things (hence the lists; they keep minor articles from popping up left and right; best to have 1 policy violation over 150); but at least with the Battlefront II information, it is minor enough to be easily converted to prose (that's why I voted delete). — Deckiller 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That was part of the problem before the lists. There were separate articles for Clone Sharpshooters, Assault Droids, etc. It was really terrible. Creating that list let us delete a whole bunch of awful fancruft, while at the same time keeping it off the main Battlefront II article. I really think the article has improved over the last few months because of that. But as I said on the talk page there, I'm not going to watch it anymore. In the time I've been working on it I've seen a lot of fanboy contributions on one side, a lot of spiteful maintenance tags and AfDs on the other, and only two or three people actually interested in discussing changes and creating a quality article. It's not worth the headache, especially since I don't think much of the game anyway, so I don't really care what happens to it anymore. Kafziel 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

I think we should blow up the current RfC against CoolKatt and start up a new one, because it seems the current one will not result in some kind of resolution (unlike the BenH RfC). CoolKatt is again labelling my edits as vandalism (specifically on WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) and WGTW-TV) and something really needs to be done. This time, I would like to be the one starting up the RfC. I may even attempt to use mediation as well.

Here's one more gem from CK, from WKBS and WGTW: "!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considerd vandalism. --" So, I guess that means anyone who removes HIS mandatory merge tags (or his worthless "trivia") is committing vandalism? You make the call. Rollosmokes 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't listen to Rollosmokes. He himself is a problem editor. CoolKatt number 99999 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A problem for you, I suppose. But he hasn't broken a fraction of the rules you have. I don't intend to start a new RfC, but after looking at your recent contributions and discussions, I still support my original position and would offer my support it again if need be. Kafziel 15:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Appreciate the advice.

-Amynewyork4248

Did you know?

On July 8, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Esopus Wars, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Here's some Wayne County Rumble proof.

Official Website. Now do you support me? Tom Danson 12:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, because the basic theme throughout all of this is that the team doesn't know what it's called. I'm sure that applies to the guys who maintain the website as well. There's no rush; it can wait until Wednesday. Kafziel 13:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And how does the team not know what it's called? It's pretty obvious to me that they'll be the Wayne County Rumble. Tom Danson 13:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was that obvious, how come you wanted to move it to Wooster GLIFL? Kafziel 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That was before I knew the team would still be the Rumble... Ah, forget it! I'll just wait until Wednesday or until I'm able to move the page. Tom Danson 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Once it's official, google results should expand and support the move. I'll keep an eye on it and move it for you once that happens.

By the way, you don't need to start a new heading for each reply on a talk page; you can just edit the section and add your comment to the bottom. Just use a colon for each indent, to separate your comments from the last person's. Kafziel 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote requested for Exocortex AfD

The Exocortex article is being considered for deletion. You may wish to share your thoughts on the matter. (Any reply posted here will not be reviewed by me.) --Amit 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Yanks-Sox Rivalry

Generally speaking, I would say that the hate between the two is even. I don't know why it says Boston fans hate more than Yankee fans because that's just not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs)

Of course it's true. I really don't want to go through it all over again; the whole discussion is on the talk page. Even diehard Boston fans will admit it's lopsided, sources are cited in support of it. Essentially, it's similar to a rivalry between a bully and his victims. The kids who get beat up hate the bully, but the bully doesn't really hate the kids. He doesn't think too much about them at all, until it's time to beat them up again. One World Series win isn't going to suddenly balance the tables. That's just how it goes. Kafziel 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's true huh? Come sit in Section 39 with me and the bleacher creatures during a yanks-sox game and see what happens when a Red Sox fan enters. There's a source for you. Even when we're not playing Boston do you think they're not on our minds? They always are. I can't speak for everyone, but I hate the Red Sox more than anything else in the world and I bet that thousands of other Yankee fans would say the same thing. Who cares how many championships each has won? That is irrelevant information. In a rivalry like this there is just intense hate on both sides and that's all the article should say, but whatever...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs)

I'll keep my regular seats. Hey, I'm no fan of the Red Sox, but what it comes down to is that what you're talking about is original research. A discourse about how much you hate Boston would be better suited for your personal blog, or for the discussion boards at espn.com. Wikipedia doesn't accept first-hand experience or opinions as content for articles. I hope that makes more sense. Thanks for your input. Kafziel 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing things happen for years and years is called a primary source. But when you tell me the kids who get beat up hate the bully, but the bully doesn't really hate the kids. He doesn't think too much about them at all, until it's time to beat them up again, what kind of statement is that? That is the most broad, general thing you could possibly say. You can't just apply that to any situation like it just fits automatically. It's just not true man, not here anyway. You are generalizing that millions of Yankee fans out there only hate Boston when they play them. That is absolutely non-sensical. And just because we're not idiots and don't chant "Boston Sucks" at every home game?? Not a good reason if you ask me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs)

First of all, I didn't try to add my "bully" analogy to the article. That was just for the sake of explanation here, to sum up the discussion on the article's talk page. The statements in the article itself are all backed up by sports writers and cited facts in the references section.

Secondly, you're generalizing that millions of Yankee fans out there do hate Boston, based on the outlook of the Bleacher Creatures. What do we have to hate Boston about? Are we mad because they've taken so many of our great players? No, because they haven't. Are we mad because they beat us every time it matters? No, because they don't. Do we hate them because they've won so many World Series rings? Certainly not. So what's to hate? We have nothing to be jealous about. Sure, I get pissed when Yankee pitchers toss watermelons to David Ortiz, and I think Manny Ramirez is a scumbag, but there's no enduring animosity toward the Red Sox. I think Brett Myers and A.J. Pierzynski are scumbags, too, but that doesn't mean I hate Philadelphia or Chicago. And, no, the Red Sox don't even cross my mind if the Yankees are playing Toronto or something. Our record speaks for itself, so what's to be mad at Boston about? Kafziel 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The number one reason for me is their fans, and after being in Boston plenty of times and even spending a year there I got a nice dose of them. But I won't go into that. Overall that's what an intense rivalry is all about, being brought up to like one side and dislike the other. I guess it affects different people to a different extent, depending on how they were thrown into the rivalry. Sure you don't hate Philadelphia or Chicago, and why should you? They're in different divisions, there is no long-standing history between the Yankees and either of those teams. They rarely even play the White Sox. But every year the Red Sox play 19 games against the Yankees and battle for the division title. And maybe you don't hate the team personally, but you can't tell me that you don't hate to see their fans happy and their team doing well. All of the questions that you pose above obviously do not contribute to the hate, as a Yankee fan. The hate is something that is instilled gradually over the years as you become a bigger and bigger fan (starting from childhood). Maybe the Red Sox have a bigger percentage of hating fans because they have a smaller, intense group of diehard fans, but I do not believe that they have a greater overall number of fans who hate the Yankees more than the reverse.

You've just pointed out the difference: Yankee fans hate Red Sox fans, but Red Sox fans hate the actual Yankees. Red Sox fans hate Bucky Dent. They hate Lou Pinella. They hate Wade Boggs. Yankee fans don't hate Carl Yastrzemski. Yankee fans would hardly care about Boston at all if Boston fans weren't such dicks all the time. Sox fans hate the Yankees no matter what. Who cares? Let 'em. That's nothing to be proud of. Kafziel 16:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out. Home Page Reorganization The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list. Article Classification Move The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project. New Talk Page Template The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.

Balance As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations! What You Can Do to Help The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope. Signed by Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)