User talk:Kafziel/archive5

Permanent vacation template.

I like :) Will ^(talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks. Feel free to take it. Kafziel ^Talk 04:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Kafziel/archive5. Have a Happy New Year !

^{Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)}

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More socks of Bruce99999?

Hi Kafziel. I notice you blocked indefinitely Homoman12 following vandalism to Bruce Mansfield. Since then Philmanskkjaaaw, 220.235.198.186 and 220.235.212.211 have 'contributed' similar edits/reversions to that article and to Philip Brady, among others, and all have been warned (or temporarily blocked in the case of Philmanskkjaaaw) for vandalism. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern

I'm disappointed to hear your comments on WP:3RR. I've raised concerns about this editor's behaviour. It appears you wish me to wait for them to disappear of their own account. Should I come back in two years and hope he has grown up? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From looking at your interactions, you both seem to be equally involved in the edit war. In fact, the only difference I can see is that you seem to be using more bad language and name-calling. Kafziel ^Talk 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In what universe? Certainly not this one. Not one foul word was uttered by me, and name-calling? Come on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the all-caps sentence here. Care to reconsider? Kafziel ^Talk 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol ... look again at that ... just more carefully. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at it very carefully. Tell me how I've misinterpreted the word FUCKING. Kafziel ^Talk 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to give you a chance to redeem yourself. A quick glance at the diff link would have told you that it was he that used it, not me. It was the most extreme of the three instances of 3RR wiki-lawyering I found this multi-blocked user conducting in edit summaries while avoiding talk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to redeem myself. You're in the wrong here, and I've given you your last warning. Go back to the talk page and discuss it like a grown-up. Or don't. Kafziel ^Talk 17:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And I see you have just given me a block warning for complaining about your treatment of me? Is that something you think would go down well with other admins? As for my lack of civility, if you've perceived that then I apologize, but I'm awaiting your apology to me too. Slanderous and inaccurate accusations against established users by an admin is relatively serious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. You just need to step back and settle down. You're not going to argue me into blocking another editor who hasn't violated 3RR just by pointing out peripheral misunderstandings on my part. By this time, you could have simply taken it to the discussion page as I originally suggested. Kafziel ^Talk 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you block him, he'll be back soon enough anyways and will get blocked soon enough for other misdemeanors. The conversation is now about you. False accusations of foul language and sock puppetry are not "peripheral", they are serious, esp. by an admin at such a forum. You've compounded that by threatening to block me. I bear you no ill will and don't wish to do so, but I'm taking this further if you don't retract those statements. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any accusations in any forum; I made them right here, on my own talk page. And although I was wrong about the bad language, I wasn't wrong about the personal attacks. Go ahead and take it further if you want to - that will only confirm that you've made this personal because you didn't get your way. You should be glad I didn't block both of you right from the start, since you both made 3 reverts. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've done that. Instead, in the interest of positive progress, I recommended you take it to the discussion page (which you still haven't done). If you want to spend your time hounding me, rather than trying to work out the problem at hand, that's fine. See how far it gets you. Kafziel ^Talk 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised you didn't retract those slanderous comments, nor substantiate your accusation of personal attacks. Well, I'm going to take it "further". It's not about me, it's about unworthy and untrustworthy admins who use blocking powers. This is a real pet issue of mine; I believe behind vandals and users such as the one you were protecting, such admins are the biggest threat to wikipedia's health. I'm of course not going to get anywhere, I'm not deluded, but it can't hurt. Regarding "taking it to talk page" ... that matter is and has always been in hand, and your urgings in that direction have always been superfluous. It's a 5 hour old edit conflict regarding drastic changes to content one and a half years old. My stance as you know is that I've already taken this to talk page and that it is up the other user to respond now; he has promised to do so. If he doesn't, and if I can be bothered letting the matter take up my time, I will repeat the matter on the talk page. After that, who knows. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Antagonistic edit summaries like this one are what I'm talking about. Edit summaries are for summarizing edits, not for discussion and certainly not for insulting remarks to other editors. Speaking of discussion, the fact that you got to the talk page first doesn't mean you're relieved of all responsibility and are free to edit war as you please. One comment six months ago does not a discussion make. Now that it's been pointed out that you were just as wrong as the editor you wanted blocked, you're trying to change the subject and redirect your anger at me.

But the fact is I didn't use my so-called "blocking powers"; in fact, this whole thing came about because you're mad that I didn't block anyone at all. Kafziel ^Talk 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, that's a comment on the editor's knowledge, something entirely relevant to the course of things; yes, it appears very rude, and I fully apologize for that. One often gets more passionate than is good when events are running their course, which is why a well phrased suggestion to disappear for a wee while is always helpful. Regarding the edit warring. It was drastic change to 18 month old content. It was undefended. Now, one should the talk pages as much as anything, but when you don't know why content has been removed, what are you supposed to write, esp. as you'll already written? In fairness to me, in a new conflict (this is a day old), one doesn't know how committed the other user is to his edits, so it's not unreasonable to revert at first. With thousands of pages on one's watch list and loads of other things to do, you can't write essays for every edit a user of that type makes. So reverting him at first is far from "edit warring". When the other user makes his third edit and boasts about 3rr in the edit summaries, you know he is edit warring. Like I said before, I don't actually care if you blocked Thank ... whatever he's called ... and I didn't actually expect him to be blocked; I used an ambiguity in the phraseology of WP:3RR as an excuse to bring attention to his editing. Bringing such users to attention is sometimes a good way of reigning them in. I expected weight to be exerted in a way helpful to the matter, not to be accused of his crimes and otherwise slandered. Regarding your blocking, whether or not you used your blocking power on me (and you know that such a dubious block would not have lasted very long saving extremely unfortunate admin lottery) I know you use your blocking powers often; and I've seen how you handled that matter today, and it bothers me. It bothers me that you have those powers and have a confrontational approach to criticism. You threatened to block me for complaining about your handling of the 3RR. Now even if you handled that perfectly, I'm entirely within my rights to criticize and you are not in your rights to block or threaten to block me for doing so, per conflict of interest. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a personal attack, and you know it. You can't say it isn't and then claim to apologize for it in the same breath.

As for his edits, old content does not equal good content. He was justified in making the change (no matter how drastic), and you were justified in reverting him. Once. But he couldn't have reached 3 reverts if you hadn't done the same thing. The entire time, you've been claiming that the burden is on him to start discussion, and that is simply not true. Content disputes, no matter how correct you might be, are not exempt from 3RR, so both of you are equally accountable. It should be painfully obvious by now that the comment you left back in June is not adequate. Rather than wasting all this time arguing about it, you could have simply expanded upon it in a new section.

I didn't block you. I didn't threaten to block you. I gave you a warning, and I stand by that. It was because of your behavior in the 3RR discussion, not because you disagreed with my decision. Plenty of people have disagreed with my decisions and it doesn't bother me at all. A lot of other admins would have simply blown you off by now; I've taken a pretty good chunk of my day trying to explain all this to you. If you choose to view that as hostility rather than helpfulness, that's up to you. Feel free to request a refund of your subscription price. They can take it out of my paycheck. Kafziel ^Talk 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had many conversations about this simplistic philosophy regarding editing on wikipedia, given my say, and can't be bothered responding to you on this any longer. Anyways, a "warning" is a block threat, and you know that. Pretending it isn't is no good. And it came directly after my quite valid criticisms of you (i.e. of two definitely untrue slanders and three misreadings of the 3RR you were closing), you had plenty of earlier opportunity to warn me for any earlier incivility (and yeah, specify to people in future when you warn them for incivility ... makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?). You gave a warning on my talk page for personal reasons, and you know that. Please don't expect me to take you seriously while denying this. And now you expect me to be grateful for condescending to give your time to little me? Hey, I've wasted loads of my day too, responding to you when I didn't need to. We're both volunteers my friend. Is it that you think I live in Never Never Land or something? (The opportunity for a counter here is great ... can ye resist?) Other admins wouldn't have done all that you've done, so they wouldn't have had the problem you've had; what's more, a desire to have the last word is not a virtue. Chill out. I can't take this further now anyways as it prolly would appear that I was merely pursuing a grudge. I'm keeping the summary I've made of this though with all the diffs in case you ever become an issue for wikipedia again. While I'll be tending to my own issues, I hope you exercise your role more professionally in future, and are more careful about throwing false accusations around. I also hope you develop the professionalism to own up to your mistakes when you make them. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Algerianfranc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Algerianfranc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very funny

Your notification to people who get banned is classic. Great idea. Happy editing. michfan2123 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Kafziel ^Talk 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebafan57

Thanks :) Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention request

Hi Kafziel, we have interacted before on Jaswant Singh Khalra article. I have been contributing to Wikipedia off and on since then. Currently, I am looking for admin mediation on an issue which is getting annoying and I hope you being an admin can intervene and make a few things clear. If you note user:Kanchanamala's actions on Sanatan Singh Sabha article, it will not be hard to note that he is pushing unsubstantiated, non-cited, propaganda and POV on that page. He neglects the objections raised to the same content on the talk page of Sanatan Singh Sabha article and simply keeps continually reverting and pushing his POV. Thanks, ---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 08:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this conflict is too far outside my expertise. As far as I can see, his text is sourced; if the sources are not valid for some reason, I don't understand the subject well enough to help. You may want to ask for another opinion at WikiProject Sikhism. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Kafziel ^Talk 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Kafziel. However, his text is not sourced; it is blatantly unethical content. Please note that his content has following claims:-

1. "There are also Hindus, mainly from Punjab, who follow Sikhism, believing that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda."

Problem: Being a Hindu and following Sikhism is a funny claim and moreover there is no source specific and there no substantiation of the claim. Other claim in the same sentence says that Hindu's believe that Guru Granth Sahib is the 5th veda, again a funny and extraordinary claim but no source and substantiation. Note that the source Vish Ayengar that has been provided at the end of the text has no claim from these 2.

2. "Guru Nanak Dev says that the word of the Guru is [also] the Veda"

Problem: This is propaganda and malicious intent misrepresentation of Guru Nanak's views on Vedas. If I start putting Guru Nanak's philosophy on Vedas from his writings in AGGS these guys will surely not like it as Guru Nanak considered Vedas responsible for the prevailing untouchability, class hierarchy and hypocrisy in Indian society and so rejected the authority of the Vedas. user:Kanchanamala is quoting Guru Nanak totally out of context. Any honest scholar cannot do this work or tolerate deliberate misquotations. I can put the detailed information and with translations of Guru Nanak's work but since I work full time, it will need some time to arrive. I've read the whole AGGS that he is sourcing in original Punjabi and also from the best available modern English interpretations of Guru Nanak. There is no claim like the one that is being put in the mouth of Guru Nanak by user:Kanchanamala

3. "Vish Ayengar, says that all the Indian traditions are inspired by the vedas"

Problem: Vish Ayengar has no historical or research credibility on the subject matter. Vish Ayengar's 2 page text sourced for this claim has no citations at all. Its like I myself write my POV on western philosophies, put it on my website and then somebody says at wikipedia "A. S. Aulakh says that all the western philosophies are inspired by Islam". Now the problem is obvious in any such extraordinary claim. First off, this extraordinary claim will need extraordinary evidence. Second, Mr. A. S. Aulakh does not have any authority on interpreting western philosophies (so far). Third, his paper is not a research or a reliable source for any encyclopedia since is was not published in any conference or symposium or peer reviewed, lastly he is not putting any logic behind his extraordinary claims. Thanks, ---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the part about Hindus following Sikhism - that's funny. However, I can't be certain about the other claims because I just don't know enough about it. If his sources are bad, then you can mark them with {{dubious}} or {{verify source}} tags and find someone at the Sikhism WikiProject who can take a look. Good luck! Kafziel ^Talk 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Thanks for the warning. If I thought it was a serious dispute I would have waited to let someone else revert the guy, but since it was nothing but bad faith disruption, I saw no problem in reverting it. Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith POV pushing isn't vandalism, so reverting it still isn't exempt from 3RR. Kafziel ^Talk 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. My point was that, in going up to three reverts I was neither intending to game the system, nor was I "PANICking". Guettarda (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is I've blocked an awful lot of users for fewer than 4 reverts. It was borderline, but certainly within the scope of 3RR. And this sure sounds like unapologetic system-gaming to me. Kafziel ^Talk 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How so? The guy starts by accusing other editors of being "anti-Christian". He then engages in bad faith editing. He then makes a false 3RR report on AN/I. His attempts at well-poisoning and personal attacks are unacceptable. Obviously "3 reverts" isn't an entitlement, so you are entitled to block for fewer than three reverts. Also, obviously, no one is entitled to cross that threshold. At the same time, when someone is engaging in the kind of bad faith editing that TM was, it's no more edit warring than is reverting vandalism. If you seriously are going to block at less than four, you need to take the time to figure out what the situation is at the article. If you want to do that, at least you should take the time to figure out what's going on. Blocking for a 3RRvio below four reverts is a judgment call. If you're going to make a judgment call, you need to look at the entire situation in context. You aren't a newbie admin any more. If your understanding of the 3RR, I strongly suggest that you avoid making blocks. Guettarda (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you are making blocks, should you really have your talk page semi-protected for three months? Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I have never seen anyone argue with me more than the people I don't block. I don't need to hear your excuses, just stop edit warring.

You are absolutely wrong if you think any amount of bad faith editing is vandalism. Take a look at the policy page - stubbornness and repeated insertion of unreferenced information are specifically listed as not vandalism and are not to be treated as such. I did look at the entire situation, and I absolutely agree that the other editor has used some bad faith, which is why I didn't block you. I assumed it was a case of you being goaded into losing your head momentarily, so a block wasn't necessary. Was I wrong? Kafziel ^Talk 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban message

lol, i really like your message that you leave with banned users, it is great! Tiptoety ^talk 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where to report?

Hi, you removed my report about vandalism by multiple users on Me from [Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism] because it was filed on the wrong page. Could you please direct me to the correct page? Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but the article you're referring to won't qualify. It's only been vandalized once in the past week (possibly twice, but I think the "do-re-me" guy was simply misguided); it takes a lot more than that for a page to be protected. If it needed protection, I would have taken care of it myself. I hope that clears things up, and I'm sorry I didn't leave you a note earlier - I meant to, but got sidetracked. Kafziel ^Talk 10:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator Kafziel:

May I request you to read the talk page of the article on "Sanatan Singh Sabha". I shall appreciate your input on my talk page. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the highest form of compliment

I developed a things that Make Me Laugh section as well, though i am not sure how to TOC my user page. Take a look and (hopefully) enjoy. thanks for the idea. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Good stuff! I feel sorry for the people who can't find humor working here; if you don't laugh, you'll just go crazy. Kafziel ^Talk 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion of 219.66.41.150

Hi, Kafziel. I have kept encountered socks of 219.66.41.150 even thought he is blocked by you, and not allowed to edit wiki for 24 hours . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:219.66.41.150

However, 219.66.41.150 is evading his sanction with slightly different ip address 219.66.41.162 or obvious using a computer in another place 43.244.133.167. I made a 3RR file again[1] and RFCU case[2], which takes some time to get an effort on the user. I've been witnessing his disruption for a long time. Please make him stop doing such things. Thanks.-Appletrees (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Determined IP vandals will always find a way around their blocks. I have semi-protected Kofun period so that new and anonymous users can no longer edit it at all, but I can't protect all the articles he has been editing. If the investigation proves that they are all the same blocked user, you will be allowed to revert him as many times as necessary without being in danger of violating 3RR. Good luck! Kafziel ^Talk 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanatan Singh Sabha & Kanchanamala

Administrator Kafziel, may I request you to revisit the talk page of Sanatan Singh Sabha, and read my response to A.S. Aulakh's objections, and his reply to my response. I am accustomed to scholarly exchanges, and I regret to say that A.S. Aulakh's reply has baffled me. May I request you to give your input in this matter right here as you seem to prefer. I shall keep checking this page. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A.S. Aulakh requested my input as well, but I'm sorry to say I simply do not know enough about the subject to offer any advice. As far as I can see, his arguments seem sound. You may want to ask for assistance at WikiProject Hinduism or WikiProject Sikhism. Someone there will surely be able to help you. Kafziel ^Talk 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel, I am not requesting for your intervention regarding the subject-matter of the article. I am requesting your intervention to see if my response is coherent, and if A.S. Aulakh's reply is not. Does he make his point, reasonable or otherwise, well enough to edit the longstanding original version of the article? Is A.S. Aulakh making his efforts properly? I am not requesting any expertise in Sanatan Singh Sabha from you. Kafziel, I am requesting you to review the manner of discussion as an administrator. That's all the favor I am asking of you. Please do oblige. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

His arguments seem sound and correct, yes. Whether information is "longstanding" or "original" is not part of our criteria; an article may be as old as Wikipedia itself, but if it lacks proper sources then it may be changed by anyone at any time. His explanations all seem valid, from a policy standpoint. And, even if they weren't, he would still be allowed to make any changes he saw fit, without any explanation at all (short of edit warring). That is the nature of wikis. Kafziel ^Talk 09:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback tools

Thank you for the timely approval! :) Regards, Xdenizen (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Enjoy your new button! Kafziel ^Talk 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vtwm

Hiya, I was suprised to find that wikipedia doesn't have a page for Vtwm, (I've just downloaded it and made some changes, and was telling someone about it and said 'wp it'.. and they said, it's got nothing!) so I started to edit one, but then found it had been deleted. I'm not sure that this is the same vtwm that I'm dealing with though. I'm talking about the 'virtual tabbed window manager' which was an offshoot of twm. What was wrong with the article, and how can I avoid making the same mistakes? Also, how do I find out what was in the article, as researching vtwm is proving difficult, I can't even find out who originally 'forked ' the project from Tom LaStrange's twm, even if the article was lacking, it may have some information that I can add to the vtwm page. This is going to give me some difficulty with references, as most of them are in the source!! Hmm.. I'll probably just reference the vtwm.tar.gz download .

I'm going to create the page, and would welcome you having a look at it and tell me if it's okay. I'm still relatively new to wp, (I've been putting stuff up for two years or so, but only intermittently, and still don't know how all the tags work and stuff).

regards Colum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacosm (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The original version was very little but advertising, which was why it was deleted. There's really nothing from that version you could use, and the only reference was vtwm's own website. Your version looks better (it won't be speedy deleted, at least) but you'll still need to establish notability under this guideline or it might be nominated for a deletion discussion. The fact that it's difficult to find reliable sources (i.e. not just the company's own statements) might mean the information is better suited to being a subsection in the twm article. Or the program itself might be sufficient. That would be up to the community to decide, if it ever goes to AfD, but for now it looks like you're off to a much better start than the last guy. Hope this helps! Kafziel ^Talk 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I must say, this notablity stuff is weird. It basically seems that a thing doesn't exist until people have written about it! I think if this is applied seriously, a lot of wikipedia would disappear! I guess it's there to prevent people writting articles about their dog, although, if they can get a few friends to write articles about their dog elsewhere, then their dog is notable! I've found some pages that I'll add to the link list, and that should count as notibility with a bit of luck!

Thanks Colum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacosm (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I love it!

I just saw that "permanent vacation" template and I have to tell you: It ROCKS! That should be standard issue for each and avery administrator. Vandals don't take this site seriously and they deserve a good kick in the backside before being shown the door. Bravo! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the best I have seen in the war on vandal activity. I know that there are some users who don't like to confront vandals at all, or who would say... "don't offend them". Heck, their vandalism offends me, and it offends the others who are building this project. Some don't even warn even after obvious multiple vandalisms! (damn cowards) You rock this place dude! As an admin, you have my respect indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "voting is evil" on your userpage

...so much for "per nom" with the new rollback poll. :-p
But I guess it was kind of necessary since they fought over it before when discussing. -- Mentifisto 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole situation seems really strange to me, because the majority of opposition is coming from regular editors who could use the tool, and the majority of support is coming from administrators, who have nothing to lose either way. I keep my buttons no matter what. But you're right, I'm not surprised - there was controversy during the original discussion, and some folks just love to keep those fires burning. Kafziel ^Talk 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Rollback removal

Thank you! (I wonder if I'm the first...) --barneca (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you watch these people?

Hi, Kafiziel. I visited here last week for the sock ip address user's disruptive edits on Korean-Japanese related articles. My RFCU case is still on hold because of the long report(almost 2 weeks!). And anonymous ip users with same ip host(odn.ad.jp) keep deleting or adding inflammatory or irrelvant contents with highly uncivil manners. I think I can't handle the user.

• 211.3.114.239 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Information that a Korean user concealed is returned. 　"Moreover, there is a strong Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea."[3]

• This Korean user conceals an inconvenient source to Korea. [4]

• Ｔｈｉｓ Korean people steals a Japanese culture and a Chinese culture.[5]

• rv: This Korean user is ardent to the change of the Japanese culture to a Korean culture. [6]

• 211.3.114.239 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is even vandalising my RFCU report up to 3 times!

Can you stop his disruptive behaviors? Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're better off letting the checkusers run their course. The outcome of that will be more binding than anything I can do, anyway. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		You've won yourself a barnstar for this edit over here! you can do whatever you want with this barnstar! —BoL 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to help. :) Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax

Although he has certainly been troublesome in the past, I don't think blocking him for revert warring is anyway justified for the reasons I've stated on his talk page. I've taken the liberty of unblocking him. Naturally I will keep an eye on him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned (and blocked) for edit warring in the past, so another set of warnings aren't needed. He didn't technically break 3RR, but he came close enough. Judging by his response to your unblock, which is the same response he always has to blocks, and his continued harassment of K.Lastochka just before the block, I'd say it should have been obvious that he isn't the best user to stake your reputation on. I'm keeping an eye on him. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right but I'm hoping that by being on his side in this matter will mean that I have more influence on his behaviour. I'm ever optamistic anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ocimum Biosolution

Hi, you deleted the article Ocimum Biosolution. I request you to reconsider the deletion and roll back. My resoning is that the company is significant enough to have an article of its own. (try googling Ocimum Biosolutions) to establish its notability. Is there any other criteria/issues that should be met/addressed? --hydkat 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Google results are not an indication of notability (and, even if they were, the company has only about 150 hits on the Indian Google). Aside from failing to assert notability, the article was largely a re-creation of a previously deleted page (located at Ocimum Biosolutions), as well as a copyright violation of this site and others like it. You are of course welcome to request a review, but you'll need to be prepared with multiple, reliable, independent sources to support your position. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I'm not saying googling something exclusively proves notability. But c'mon! if newspaper articles like the one by forbes.com cannot be used to verify notability then what can? They are a part of that alliance and the material printed there comes from them, if there is any other copyright issues they can be resolved once the page is up...

-hydkat 10:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I had know Ocimum Biosolutions was deleted back in july I would have contested it then :( --hydkat 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW what do you mean only 150 hits? --hydkat 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've requested for a review here. Thought to inform you... --hydkat 12:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, So if the version is not in copyright violation, and an unbiased description of the company can the page can exist? There's no notability issue now? --hydkat 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's always a notability issue. And, evidently, there's also a COI issue. If it's this important to you, that might be an indication to you that you're not the one to write it.

The review discussion ended early because it was a blatant copyright violation, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be deleted again if notability is not clearly established under the guidelines. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:AIV

That's a Huggle error ;-) - Thanks though! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

"You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Ahmad Zahir,". As you can see, I have never edited such article. However, I have been in dispute over the Treaty of Tripoli thread. I must note that the one admin, Vary, refuses to accept a NPOV statement that states that other authors agree with a certain author on a position, especially where the opposite side has the two previous paragraphs. It would seem in violation of NPOV to not accept such a thing. The situation was discussed, but people, like the Admin, felt the need to delete instead of correct statements. That is not contributing to the thread or to anything at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake; I was doing too many things at once when I posted your block message.

Of course, that doesn't mean the block wasn't warranted for the edit war at Treaty of Tripoli. Someone pushing a point of view (or you trying to assert one yourself) does not give you the right to edit war. No matter how right you may be, no matter how much you discuss the situation, violating 3RR will only make you look bad and get you blocked. There are appropriate channels for dispute resolution, so start there if you really feel it's necessary. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 06:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not realize I was going to enter into 3RR, seeing as how they were on two different days. Thank you for correcting it on my talk page. It is important, since I cannot delete my talk page, and people looking back at the history may be confused. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dominican Day Parade

Hi Kafziel

I locked the page following a report] at AN3 only to discover that you had blocked the user concerned around 10 minutes earlier. I'm not sure whether you acted as a result of the AN3 report, but, if you did, can I ask you to close reports when you have taken action so that other admins know they have been dealt with? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just in the process of blocking him & leaving a message. I always close reports when I finish them - I just wasn't done yet. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then. :( Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was only 3 minutes between when I blocked him and when you protected the article - funny how it sat there for hours and hours and then you & I both decided to take care of it at the exact same time. I guess great minds think alike. :) Kafziel ^{Take a number} 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[7]

Oh the irony. :) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not just a content dispute

The vandal "fabricated information to upset me because I filed WP:RFCU and WP:SSP on User:KoreanShoriSenyou, User:Azukimonaka, User:Orchis29 and User:Amazonfire and except Amazonfire, all has been infinitely blocked. However either they're likely evading their sanction or Amazonfire who recently has been blocked for his disruptive editing and stalking me. --Appletrees (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 218.224.54.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 124.87.134.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 125.200.61.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 219.66.47.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 221.190.251.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I don't see any evidence that it's fabricated. I don't see any evidence that it was done to upset you. And, even if you do have evidence, AIV isn't the place to present your case. Most of those IPs haven't even edited in a week or more. Start an RFC or something. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, I may lock the wrong door, but you didn't follow the cited links. The vandal has followed my steps with various IP address along with the abovementioned IP addreses. The vandal gradually fabricated statics with immflammory langauge. Thanks anyway, the vandal hit and ran already.--Appletrees (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Commitment vs Treatment

Hello there. With regards to the C&C-related dispute; I hope it is now settled, as I'd much rather invest my time here on Wikipedia into improving the quality of this website's articles. This is something I've been doing for these past two to three months with quite a bit of commitment and investment of time, as my history pages will demonstrate in no uncertain terms.

I've noted most editors appear to receive barn stars for this. I've apparently been rewarded with a baseless edit war from another user and a one-sided temporary block from Wikipedia by an administrator. I'm aware that a single administrator is hardly representative of the Wikipedia website and its mission in general, and as such I will be able to shrug this off without any real loss of motivation in the long run. But even so, the experience has been so distasteful Wikipedia can quite frankly blow me for an undetermined period of time, with this particular administrator as the first standing in line.

I'm aware this post serves no real purpose. But it is here for you to read, anyway.

With kind regards,

the primary and most active editor of Wikipedia's Command & Conquer-related articles. Kalamrir (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User Complaint/ Important information

I do not know if this is the correct place to put it, but the user User:Maya100 appears to be a spambot, as you may note by the advertisements made by him/her/it. As this is classified under what wikipedia is not, I'm guessing this kind of thing isn't allowed? Daedalus969 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Hebig07

Your edit here........LMAO! XD Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you not take off my thing I'm editing in "Heavy Metal Music", please?

When I edit that bit on "Heavy Metal Music", in the sentence "Those closer to the music's blues roots or placing greater emphasis on melody are now commonly ascribed the latter label (which is hard rock)" I put in "play acoustic songs, use instruments like flute, mandolin, steel guitar, etc. or incorporate other styles of music in some of their songs" after the line ""Those closer to the music'sblues roots or placing greater emphasis". The reason I put that thing in is because people would commonly say for what I put in "That's not metal, playing acoustic songs, use flutes, mandolins, and that, or flirt with other styles of music in their songs. That's just plain hard rock". That's one of the reasons why they see bands like Led Zeppelin, Rush, Kiss, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Van Halen, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Whitesnake, Deep Purple, UFO, Uriah Heep, etc. as hard rock bands more often now rather than heavy metal. Can you not delete my bit on that page next time I put it in, because I am telling the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Whitton (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, you've never edited that article and neither have I. Can you provide a diff? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheDiamonds.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheDiamonds.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brimstone cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brimstone cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dance of Death cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dance of Death cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Likely TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppetry (again)

Notification of all-but certain sock-puppetry: 99.129.71.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Give me more information (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are likely sock-puppet of TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The same article selection and characteristic edit summary styles are telling. If you need more evidence, please let me know. Thanks. — Myasuda (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Give me more information

I would be inclined to unblock this user on WP:AGF grounds. But I am going to check how you feel about it first. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also looking at the request. Can you confirm which user you think this is a sock of? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't I look stupid now?? ;) There is such an enormous overlap in their edits that I don't think there can be any doubt its the same user. I don't know, I don't really favour unblocking long term sockmasters until they have, well, confessed and made convincing statements of future good behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, User:TyrusThomas4lyf has been incredibly resilient (and resourceful) in finding a ton of IP adds to edit from. It's been going on for a year already I think. Anyway, appreciate the swift action taken against his socks. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I can hardly believe it's been almost a year already, but indeed it has. Well, I wish it wasn't necessary, but I'm happy to help where I can. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

Just saw your vacation template on User_talk:Chasze's talk page. Hilarious. David D. (Talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw it, too. Made my day!! What a great notice. Thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned user via 220.233.238.4

Hi! You might want to consider blocking User:220.233.238.4 for a little while. It's that "Kingarthur" nincompoop. I just reverted a whole slew of his edits.

By the way, I was thinking of adding the "vacation from editing" template to that sock of his, but ya beat me to it. Seriously, that is THE funniest template on Wikipedia. Heaven knows this site needs a bit of humor at times. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks; I see you went and clobbered him. Hopefully, he'll learn the lesson. Talk to you soon.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Heim

Re: this: Yes, I felt it came down to blocking one or neither, and decided to give one more chance largely because Collectonian might have felt her earlier reverts were justified due to the removal of the tag. I find the method of giving a final warning and watchlisting the article sometimes lets one stop the edit war without using the tools.

And here's a classic response. I wonder if we should consider making some sort of note on the 3RR page that edits that are "against consensus" are not vandalism and reverting them isn't exempt from vandalism. It seems to be a really widespread misconception.

Just saw that you moved to Orange County, CA last year (yeah, I guess I'm slow), which makes us almost neighbors (I live in San Bernardino County, myself). Anyway, belated welcome to SoCal! And since I'm apparently just in a chatty mood now, I'll go ahead and finish this post off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked a range you've been dealing with

I've blocked 118.137.0.0/17 for a week due to the massive amounts of vandlism only edits coming from that range (for example, on the article Sunrise (company)). As you've blocked several of the IPs in this range, I thought you'd want to know. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to take that up with the admin who protected the page. It often happens that articles get locked on the wrong version, but it's generally against our protection policy to change protected articles in that way. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to undo the "wrong" version (since nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to undo the version which violates the 3RR. Such a request is absolutlely legitimate and backed by objective criteria (not like any hypothetical request for subjectively preferring a "better" version over a "wrong" version). Eliko (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But there's no basis in policy for "undoing" someone's edit just because it violates 3RR. The user himself might have undone it to avoid being blocked in the first place, but undoing it just because it broke 3RR would just amount to one more person adding to the edit war. Once article protection comes into play it can't be changed, but you might want to ask the protecting admin to remove the protection (if that would be appropriate - I can't really say, not being too familiar with the situation myself). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Company name in photo

Dear Kafziel,

I received your final warning for using our company name in the subscript of our photo. Why aren't you following the same policy for our competitor Arrowbio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_Recovery_Facility

On this page some one removed all our photo's and references to our company name REDOX Recycling Technology. Now you're doing the same with the photo of our DAF unit of our company REDOX Water Technology.

Obviously I am doing something wrong here, what should I do to get the same reference to our company name as our competitor Arrowbio?

Thanks in advance.

SmileJohn —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileJohn (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Arrowbio has been removed and the redirect page deleted. You now both have equal reference (i.e., none). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileJohn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Help!

It's days like this which make me wish I were still an admin. Might I impose on you to consider blocking User:Hockertonman as a vandalism-only account? His silly hoax article has been deleted and he's making a living mess out of my talk page and that of User:JohnCD. Thank you SO much. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yay! THANK YOU.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait!

WAIT!!! I thank you for blocking the vandals, but don't block Saber!! He was only trying to stop them!!! User:Sceptre and I will vouch for him!!! Please? I know he broke 3RR, but he was only reverting their vandalism. They were blatantly vandalizing the page. He only was stopping them. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stubbornness, using incorrect style, bold editing, and addition of links (if well-intentioned) aren't vandalism. I know you guys don't like the changes those other users were making, but if it isn't vandalism then you have to step back and look for help through the proper channels. Remember:There are no emergencies on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, if another admin reviews the block and would like to lift it, I won't have a problem with that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave it. It's only 24 hours, I guess. I feel bad for Saber but I gotta go soon, anyways. I realize what you're saying, but I don't think that's quite what those users were doing. I still think they were vandalizing. I also think Saber did his best to stop them, but oh well. It's only 24 hours, though, like I said. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

block of User:Andyvphil

If you read his second unblock request, Andy makes a pretty good case that he's not the anonymous reverter -- he seems insistent that he's in Pacifica, and the anon IP is 400 miles away (and a non-proxy). Would you mind taking a second look? Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 12:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned User:TyrusThomas4lyf: suspected socks

Hi there, a while ago you banned several TyrusThomas4lyf socks. Now, I suspect he has popped up under these socks: User:99.129.69.149, User:75.34.6.84 and User:A fine point. I would appreciate a check, and if it is true, to block these socks. I would also like to know if there is a way to hard ban a user. TT4L is extremely persistent in his attempts to circumvent the indefinite block, and resourceful in his attempts to find new anon IPs: he has 2 confirmed socks and TWENTY FOUR suspected. His presence is highly irritating. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may chime in. I'm not as involved as a couple other editos in looking out for this Tyrus chap, but based on the current edit trails, it's clear to me that the three suspected socks pointed out above are indeed the socks of Tyrus. The problem with him is that while he makes legitimate edits every now and then, more often than not he goes berserk and pushes POV. This is, not forgetting of course, that as a banned user he shouldn't be editing in the first place. Cheers. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can something be done about User:A fine point, who is messing up Kobe Bryant?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to be careful with the reversions. You only reverted one of six or so vandalistic edits. Your edit summary looked like you completely reverted however, so I almost let it go undone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I rolled back all of his edits to your previous version; there is no difference between mine and the last version you had left. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've hooked another one in Illadelph halflife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) . . . — Myasuda (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What's up with this

The account "CivilityApologist" was created by a user who shares my residence (a college student, I am that user's parent). The account is otherwise unrelated to me or my edits, was created well in advance of the incident, and (most importantly) and has 'NOT EVEN BEEN USED'. Administrator Kafziel, please explain your basis for failure to assume good faith here. WNDL42 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice for him. I have no idea what you're talking about, though, since I've never blocked him or even so much as spoken to him. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent to the expiration of your first block on Wndl42, I found that my IP address was also blocked, and the block notice I saw cited (a) the fact above as regards "CivilityApologist", and (b) your name. So, when the block notice identified you as the blocking admin, I asked the question above. I never said you blocked CA, I asked why you blocked the IP address for my residence. Kafziel: Did you not also block my IP address in addition to my account? If not, I'll go check who did and in that case please accept my apology. WNDL42 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did. We always do - it's part of Wikipedia's blocking system. It has nothing to do with assuming good faith. It has to do with preventing users blocked for edit warring from using sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to continue editing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but it looks like you came back well after you blocked Wndl42 to then block the IP address. Maybe I'm wrong. As this is my first ever block, and as you have recieved a great deal of background information via e-mail that you haven't commented on, and as I am very interested (in the context of "there are no emergencies on Wikipedia") how admins make these decisions, I hope you understand that I am merely trying to understand (a) your decision and (b) the Wikipedia "blocking system" you refer to.

If a preemptive block of an IP address is defined standard practice for a user (a) with no previous history of meat or sock puppetry and (b) who has never been blocked for any reason (c) has managed this even after having performed a couple thousand edits in controversial areas; then I suppose you were doing exactly what you had to do, and no more. Still, as I am new to this experience I would very much appreciate your further generosity in clarifying my understanding. Thanks in advance. WNDL42 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The system blocks IP addresses by default at the same time the user is blocked. If it turns out to effect another user, there is a procedure for fixing that.

As I said to the other editor in the dispute, I'm not interested in any of the details of the article itself, which is why I haven't addressed your emails. Some admins are good at negotiating truces, and some admins are good at dropping the hammer if negotiations fail. I was given this position because I'm the latter. That's why I work 3RR and anti-vandalism, rather than dispute resolution pages like third opinion or RFC. I work on articles I care about, but I don't get involved in content disputes when I need a hour's worth of background info before I can even start to figure out what's going on. But the links above should give you a place to start. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you would be interested

After blocking them for 3RR violation and protecting the subject article, Andyvphil's and Wndl42's first edits after blocks expired.Kww (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is now locked. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A good move for now, thanks for that. I'd like to suggest that if you lift the protection, that the article be left in "semi-protected" state to prevent further edit warring assisted by anon IPs. WNDL42 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Chasze

Hi, last week you indef blocked a user called Chasze for being a vandalism only account. I noticed that a new user wrote "FU" under your blocking message, and then replaced the page with the message "lol hax". I figure it's probably the same guy with a new account. If not, they chose an interesting talk page to begin their vandalism on. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

United States journalism scandals

RE "Important change required during page protection" (Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Insight false "madrassa" report (2007))

Please can you explain why you didn't make the necessary change I requested? Without this clarification here Wikipedia looks like it's endorsing a slur on Muslims! All you have to do is include the literary (and non-pejorative) definition of "madrassa" so people can see the difference! How can that be controversial? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask the editor who disagrees with you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that editor claim he'll make reverts that will keep a page frozen (Ilan Pappe for a good while). I think he stonewalls situations that suite him. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. Disruptive reverts are the reason that page is locked right now. I recommend continuing the discussion with him on the talk page; you've got at least a week before anything gets done, so you might as well use that time to try to come to an agreement. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the editor Matt is referring to at Ilan Pappe is the same, same behavior.

Kafziel, fyi -- a new report filed. I am ok working with Matt, we disagree but (when we are not too busy talking past one another) usually get it right in the end. The problem is that I have no idea how to deal with this. WNDL42 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel, as the blocking admin in the previous dispute, I can appreciate your now taking an interest in the topic. Please use care to review and understand the sources cited before jumping in to the content dispute, it appears to me that you are not fully up to speed on the sources. Thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And please keep in mind that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. You may wish to go through all the talk page discussions and comment in the relevant places as you join the topic. WNDL42 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly right about there being no emergencies. I wonder who told you that.

Anyway, that's why I left your changes in place after I blocked you just now. See what a laid back guy I am? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

=wp:3R|3R rule

I have an edit warring editor who has deleted my responses to him off of the talkpage on the Free will article. Could I please have some assistance. Since I have never been engaged in a 3rr before. This editor is deleting content. And as far as I know that talkpage is not the article and is not covered under the 3rr rule. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Grr.

[8] – Steel 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:) Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to reconsider the deletion of the page about BeWelcome

Hello Kafziel,

I am contacting for a request to reconsider the deletion you made about BeWelcome page.

I try to explain : when BeWelcome was created in beginning of 2007 (base on an idea started in 2006 : a legal, international, non profit and based on volunteers organization), it was displayed Beta on the website main page and someone made an article about it in Wikipedia.

The page was cancelled with the comment :(PROD expired; reason was that there was essentially no chance of a not yet launched service meeting WP:CORP)

It was pre-maturate, I agree and can understand.

BeWelcome is an opensource project for hospitality exchange and intercultural understanding. Bewelcome was made by ex volunteers [9] of HospitalityClub (almost all of the very active one at this moment) because they were not satisfied with the lack of transparency and censorship in HospitalityClub and neither happy with the company status of of couchsurfing (may be now CouchSurfing is going to become a nonprofit company for real).

The point now, is that BeWelcome is actually a launched service[10] with more than 2600 members across the world, no more beta since April 2007, and daily active.

They are people in Hospitality Service wikipedia page involved in HC management who deny BeWelcome right to exist (to figure it search google for site:www.hospitalityclub.org BeWelcome[11] and do the same for site:www.couchsurfing.com via google [12], you will probably understand what censorship means in HospitalityClub, I know it well as an ex volunteer programmer of HospitalityClub I contributed a lot to "Spam controls" programs ...). A major point of these people is the "fact" that Wikipedia cancelled the initial BW wikipedia page (which was premature action, I can figure)

I hope you understand the problem.

So here is my request : could you restore the BeWelcome page, it certainly needs to be updated and probably need review I am pretty sure many people will like to do it ! I promise to update it my self (at least to remove unappropriated information if they are some)

Greetings From France jyhegron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyhegron (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matasareanu.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Matasareanu.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dunno if you're too much of a "man's man" for that kinda thing, but since I have to pass it on and we had a wee run in a bit ago, I thought I'd pass it to thee. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's ancient history in Wiki-time. Took me a while to figure out who you were.

Sorry it contributed to some headaches on your RfA, and I'm really glad it didn't sink you. If I'd realized what was going on, I'd have supported you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I don't think our run-in caused more problems than my careless answer to question 8, but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless. On another note, since you are very experienced now on the 3RR noticeboard, you might wanna have a word to Master of Puppets regarding this and this and this. I appreciate what he's doing, but I'm not sure how well unilaterally imposing editing restrictions not in policy with no definitions of duration or scope would go down if brought to widespread attention. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that yesterday. It's weird, but I'm not sure what my angle is on that just yet... I'm still forming an opinion. I'm looking for precedents. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeedie. Anyways, he can't do that. Mop and bucket don't give him that power, certainly the community has not asserted the right of sysops to perform permanent editing restrictions like that to established editors; this is worse because of the way he phrased it on the two relevant user talk pages. He could block for edit warring, sure, maybe in practice issue a temporary editing restriction as the condition of avoiding a block, but he can't do that. If you remember, sysop rights to issue a block for 3RR had to go through large scale community discussion before becoming established (2005 was it?). If Master of Puppet's declaration is ignored and becomes a de facto precedent, it will not stand up to the wider community and could bring any admins who repeat it into disrepute. I was contemplating objecting on the page, but figured there might be a way of achieving the same objective without doing that ... thus why I seek your counsel. Master of Puppets is a new and young admin (16 y.o.) with limited experience of the more intellectual aspects of wikipedia ... figured you might be better able to sort it out with the minimum of negative consequences. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, dab (the guy he gave the 2RR to) is an admin, too. If he feels it needs to go further, he'll probably do so. But if you want to get a wider survey, there's always ANI. I'd probably comment there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You block of Prowikipedians

Hey there Kafziel, I have no problem with Prowikipedians being blocked... he did violate 3rr. But your reasoning was "vandal only account." Prowikipedians' edits were not vandalism. As the person who gave him his final 3RR warning, I checked his other edits and they were all good faith edits... this is clearly a newbie who is learning the ropes.Balloonman (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite being blocked, this user is becoming increasingly problematic on his own talk page. If this continues, perhaps protection is warranted? Praia da Lulz (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. We'll see how it goes. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another sock of User:TyrusThomas4lyf

User:Illadelph halflife is another sock of User:TyrusThomas4lyf. Since you helped to block his sock, can you take care of this one, too. Thanks Chris! _ct 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian people

Greetings Kafziel. On 15 May 2006, you voted against a move of the page Assyrian people to something else;[[13]] stating I'm more interested in the well-oiled workings of Wikipedia than political correctness. "Assyrian people" is much more likely to be used as a link in an article than "Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs". Anyone who would find "Assyrians" offensive should really examine their priorities, since the significance of most of these ethnic groups faded out millennia ago. Besides which, most of those groups already have their own pages. See Chaldean and Aramean. In English, Syriac is a synonym for Aramean. Splitting hairs any further than that isn't conducive to the smooth running of Wikipedia - I would like for you to revisit the page, as a Mod has abused his powers on the page and has made the page a complete mockery. He is now suggesting to move the page as well. I would really appricaite it if you could voice your opinion on the issue. Chaldean (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get too involved in naming debates anymore, but I do think the so-called "naming convention" (written by Dbachmann less than a week ago) has not been sufficiently vetted by the community. I'm not sure who (if anyone) approved it, but I see no mention of it at any of the Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Assyria projects. There is a brief request for discussion here, but that certainly isn't sufficient. I've removed the "naming convention" tag from the top of that page pending a proper evaluation by the community. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. You should see how bullish Dab has been on Assyrian related pages and abusing his admin authority. I have made my case to another admin [[14]]. I don't know if anything will come out of it. Chaldean (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nagasaki

Thank you for creating an article on the Nagasaki Peace Memorial Hall. They normally don't allow photography, but were nice to let me take pictures since I explained they would be useful on Wikipedia. There also is this and this from the Peace Memorial Hall. I have more photos from Nagasaki, but not all uploaded yet to Commons since I had trouble with the batch uploading tools. You may find more on my Flickr page. If you see anything to upload, please let me know. --Aude (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on reverts when accused of vandalism

Hi, Although recently I was accused of vandalism (probably of the wording?), I've noticed that just about every single page I edited that day has been reverted to the previous user, even though the changes were ethical and of good faith. Why does that happen?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowikipedians (talk • contribs)

Just because they were in good faith doesn't mean they were right. You haven't made a usable edit yet. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying here...and yes, someone did mention about the traditions...that is correct. However, Buddhism does mention that he is the "primary role/head" of Buddhism. I think it was the wording that made people confused. Also, what do you mean by "usable edit?" Prowikipedians (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Piling on

Thank you for doing this. I rarely do anything formal with annoying editors, but this one deserves what he got. Oh, and if you don't mind, your final comment was hysterical. I guess admins need a good sense of humor!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving pages

User:VegardNorman has moved pages without even discussing them. He has moved the List of Assyrian villages and Assyrian diaspora, without any discussion. Can you please move them back, since I dont have the power. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Denying own unblocks

You really shouldn't be reviewing your own unblocks. Uninvolved admins should do that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy that says so? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I too am rather concerned by this - the intent of unblock review has always been to allow another admin to review the situation and see whether the block was warranted; by convention the blocking admin should not touch the unblock template and instead wait for another admin to come along; a single admin may not always have an impartial grasp on whether her or his blocks are warranted. That this user is alleging you may have been involved in the dispute makes an impartial third opinion even more vital. "You are allowed to edit your talk page during a block so you can apologize for your behavior" is also rather misrepresentative - we allow users to appeal blocks because the blocks are not always correct. I urge you to please yield unblock requests of your own blocks to uninvolved admins from this point forward. krimpet✽ 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext#Appealing and Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#What happens next both (weakly) suggest that unblock reviews are done by independent admins. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the one that also says admins will not undo one another's decisions without consensus? The one that reads:

The routes to resolve a block are agreement by the blocking admin, a (very rare) override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or appeal to the Arbitration committee to make a formal ruling on the matter.

Which one was it in this case? Did I agree? Was the block clearly unjustifiable? Did the ArbCom make a ruling? I'm confused. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Krimpet and Rlevse, you should have allowed another uninvolved admin to review the block you put into place. Dreadstar † 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that just speaks of the act of unblocking, not the review. I'm talking about

Appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review the block. To do so, add {{unblock|your reason here}}

and

When a block is appealed, other editors - most of whom probably have no involvement in the matter - will review your editing history, which has been logged, as well as the reason for the block and the history leading up to it.

Again, they're not strong suggestions, and I'd rather not debate interpretations of policy right now, I'm just putting it out there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the formatting of this discussion is really awful. My fault for starting with the blockquote stuff. And I'm sorry, Crustacean - that previous remark was meant more for Rlevse (who shortened the block without discussion) than it was for you. I'm going to un-indent so we can start over legibly.

Look - I know there are people who disagree with my interpretation of the policy, and that's as it may be. Any admin who read those unblock requests would have denied them, because they didn't adress the reason for his block in the slightest, but whatever. You're all welcome to fix the policy wording if there's consensus to do so, and I'll never review another block again.

But I'm not wrong about the block itself, which is the real issue when we skip all the hypothetical stuff. I'm only familiar with this article because I answered a 3RR report on it last week and have continued to keep an eye on it. That doesn't make me "involved"; that makes me an admin who gives a rat's ass. I know it's kind of rare and therefore confusing, but there it is. A week after being blocked for edit warring, he was back at it, so he got blocked again. I did my best to explain the situation to him, and while I was doing that he was at the article, re-inserting his content for the third time. I even responded to his emails (something I never do) after his talk page was locked, because I didn't want to leave him hanging. I'm not tyrannical; I'm efficient. Maybe in this case I was excessively efficient, but the facts leading up to the block haven't changed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You upheld your own block without proper review, so don't start pointing fingers at Rlevse. Dreadstar † 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And I say again, there is no policy that says I can't do that. If you want to change that situation, do so. However, the policy does specifically list the three ways a block can be lifted, none of which applied to Rlevse's (or your) actions. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to reread the above comments. If you think rlevse and I have abused our administrative rights, then by all means take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you abused your rights any more than I abused mine. Both parts of the policy are open to interpretation. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I misunderstood your comment above: "the policy does specifically list the three ways a block can be lifted, none of which applied to Rlevse's (or your) actions". Dreadstar † 04:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the wording of the policy, the block shouldn't have been overturned without discussion. But I know that's an issue that's been debated at length at WP:WHEEL so I can understand your point of view. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the original block or the reduction, but I believe it is pretty generally understood that for obvious reasons, a blocking administrator should not review and deny an appeal from one of his or her own blocks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the reasons are obvious, unless you're going on the assumption that admins are running around with vendettas. If the block is a mistake, I'm just as capable of seeing that as anyone else. If the request is reasonable, I am willing to unblock and have done so. I've blocked a lot of users and I've seen a lot of unblock requests, and I've never had a block overturned because they're always justified. This isn't the first time I've reviewed my own blocks, when the unblock requests are clearly frivolous. If doing that is against policy, then update the policy to say so. First I've heard of it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen an administrator review an unblock request in a case where they've made the original block - and if that's not a clear statement on process, then we'll certainly shore it up. Plus, no one, afaict, is criticising the original block. Dreadstar † 04:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it. Made sense to me, because I assume administrators have the ability to be impartial in reviewing their own actions. And, since we aren't supposed to undo a justified block without consent from the original admin, it just adds an extra step. But if that's a problem for everyone, by all means, change the wording. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin doesn't need consent to undo the actions of another admin, merely discussion. Rlevse clearly discussed it with yout before unblocking. The problem is yours, not ours. I'd suggest you move on. Dreadstar † 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Move on"?? Um...this is my talk page. Where am I supposed to "move on" to, when every ten minutes I get another "you have new messages" banner? I haven't followed you to your talk page, or to any other forum for that matter. I haven't made any arguments for reinstating the block, nor have I replied to your less-than-polite comments about me elsewhere. I'm really not sure where this is coming from. Were you expecting me to kowtow? Is that the problem?

And, no, Rlevse didn't discuss it with me. He made a pronouncement here, never responded to my question, and a few minutes later had shortened the block. That's not a discussion under any definition I'm aware of. I'm not clear why you're making this a personal issue - I haven't done anything but respond to messages on my own talk page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I missed it somewhere, but I'm suggesting that you move on from insisting that you can review unblock requests from editors that you have blocked. It's clearly in the policy wording: "Appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review the block." "Another administorator" means an administrator other than the one who did the blocking. If that's not clear enough for you, I'll add extra wording to the policy so it's undeniably clear. Dreadstar † 06:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like the part where I said, "You're all welcome to fix the policy wording if there's consensus to do so, and I'll never review another block again"? I guess you did miss it. Now, everyone else here managed to voice their opinions with a modicum of respect, and at this point I think I've put up with just about enough of your abuse. I'm not sure who appointed you the Admin King, but it certainly wasn't me. So if you have a problem beyond this point, take it up somewhere else. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss that comment, it just didn't make sense to me. Since you asked, I've clarified who should be reviewing unblock requests. Dreadstar † 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, no I'm not a King, just a Lord....;) Dreadstar † 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nagasaki National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

English on talk pages

Please will you tell to these guys to use English on talk pages? Thank you. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they haven't done it for a little a while... I will ask if I see it again. Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also user Revizionist here and user BalkanFever here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

National Cheng Kung University (TAIWAN) article copypaste

Just to let you know, several parts of article National Cheng Kung University appears to have been copied from here. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian again

I know you don't want to get involved, but you have to, since the only admin involved is abusing his powers. He is deleting masive amount of source information [[15]] when it is clearly not off-topic. When I ask sources for his big changes, he states he owns the page [[16]] and is not obligated to bring sources to the table. I try to negotiate with, try to work with him, but he continues to put me down [[17]]. It would be one thing if this was a regular user talking this way, but this is an admin. He is moving pages without discussion [[18]] and the madness goes on. The thing I'm must troubled with is that he doesn't want to negotiate. I have been verbially abused so many times by this guy in the past week, for simply asking sources for his edits. And now he is ready to put his master-plan together by moving Assyrian people page, despite the huge opposition to it in the talk page. He doesn't care, his gameplan is to wait until the opposition has died down and then suggest to move it again. You don't go to Greek people page and suggest to move it to Greek/Hellenics people. This guy has a complete monopoly on Assyrian related pages. Chaldean (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest going to WP:ANI and telling them exactly what you told me here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators without contributions

Hi. I've been reading the pages you gave me. Apparently, I came across administrator Praia da Lulz and discovered that she does not have any contributions. Does this violate any Wikipedia "rules?" And has she gained enough trust from the community? Is she abusing her rights? (She has also harassed me on my user talk page when I subjected it for removal.) Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That user is not an admin (and is now indefinitely blocked). You can see who's an admin and who isn't by checking Wikipedia:List of administrators. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for blocking user 71.202.149.252 for vandalism on articles Dalai Lama & Snowflake (plant) & misc.

I have a request for blocking user 71.202.149.252 for vandalism on article Dalai Lama. The edits appear to be 100% vandalism, evil faith. A comparison of the edits may be found here.

Secondly, this user appears to have added vandalism to article Snowflake (plant). A comparison of the edits may be found here.

Thirdly, I am requesting that a semi-protection lock for article Dalai Lama due to the article's long history from vandalism edits. Thank you. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The place to report vandalism is here.

The place to request page protection is here.

In this case, neither of your requests is likely to be granted. The IP you want blocked has only made two edits, months apart, and the Dalai Lama's article actually has relatively little vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I'll go there and report soon. BTW..What about my previous case when I was labeled as "vandalism?" Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I know. Thanks! Prowikipedians (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

I can has mop?

Hi Kafziel! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

IP berserkergang

You might want to see this.--Berig (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think this should be taken care of for now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, spoke too soon. But I'm keeping an eye on it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to fellow admins

I have blocked the entire range of IPs coming from 123.19.0.0 for the next 24 hours - if this creates a problem, feel free to alter the range block, but please leave me a note here to let me know. Thanks. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department}

Another one? Joe0.com is registered by "John Smith" in some city I don't recognize, GA (Georgia?) Corvus cornix_talk 23:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for the help. Let's hope it's on its way to being settled - I'd rather not have to repeat all this tomorrow. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the matter! Hopefully, he will have calmed down when the block ends.--Berig (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have discovered another sockpuppet[19].--Berig (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My first hate articles.

Hello Kafziel.
Apparently, I got my first hate articles the other day: J. Delanoy and Template:J. Delanoy. These articles were both deleted (blatant attack pages) while I was asleep. When an article is deleted, is the text visible to admins indefinitely, or is it removed after a while? If deleted articles are not retained indefinitely, can you email me the text of the articles? I like to know what vandals say about me. If deleted articles are retained indefinitely, don't bother emailing me them. Hopefully, I will be able to read them myself soon.
Thanks for your time.
J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, yup, the text is available. I'll email it to you. Congratulations! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, man! I like it better when vandals actually come up with something original rather than just blanking a page or saying "you ****".

That article was so funny. I especially liked the part about me organizing the "Wiki Nazis". Must...resist...clicking...red...link... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's nice when they hate you enough to go the extra mile. It means you must be doing something right. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you meant to be tongue-in-cheek with that... In any case, I revert a lot of vandalism, and 99% of what I see is effectively the same. Quite frankly, reverting vandalism is BORING, so something interesting is a welcome addition to my uninteresting patrols. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Matasareanu.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Trolling

Dear Kafziel

This user continues blunt vandalism here [20], also here [21] and also removed vandalism warning from his talk page [22]. He also also investigated for sockpopetry [23]. He also vandalized my talk page [24]. He also is stalking other users and harassing them: [25] We need your help, I warned him on his talk page but he keeps removing the warning tag. Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already took care of it. Your best bet is to file a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI in the future. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Continues to move pages

Dab continues to move pages without any concent in the talk page. He starts the discussion at 15:44 [[26]]. 20 minutes later on 16:07[[27]] he moves the page. What kind of admin is this? It would be one thing if he was on the right side, but of course his edits are wrong. The article was about the Persian province of Athura. Can you please move it back to its original title before the discussion is over? Of course, dab won't reply to the talk page for another week. He is known for that. Oh, and this is the 4th time he has moved the page (That is titled now) West Syriacs. He has created so many redirects, that the whole topic is gone in a mess. Is there anyway to stop his rampage? Chaldean (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to the proper channels. I went to bat for you once, you disappeared, and I got nothing but a headache in return. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disappeared? Please take a look again, I was the last one commenting on the issue but once again no one took any actions and it went to the archieves. The double stanard here on Wiki is something else. The things some Admins get away with are far beyond believe. When I give him a very legit reason for his wrong-doing edit [[28]] he calls it a nomenclature-warrior edit [[29]]. How is it a warrior edit when all I wanna do is follow the guidelines we are given by the WikiProject Ethnic Group? Can you please lead me to the proper channel? Is there a admin-power check anywhere on wiki I can go to? Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you disappeared. You left me hanging for three days.

The proper place to file a report is WP:ANI, the same place as last time. See this page for more options. Good luck. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well just to let you know, I was so depressed because of the language used against me for days that I promised myself I would not edit Wikipedia anymore. Chaldean (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You warned him, he layed low for a little bit, and now is moving pages again [[30]] Chaldean (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Category

Deleted You're in Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles, which was moved to Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles, California; I couldn't fix your userpage because it is protected. I won't be watching your talk, as I assume that you don't really need to respond to me personally - I hope this isn't problematic for you. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Section of your userpage up for deletion

Hi Kafziel. I would like to inform you that another editor has nominated a section of your userpage (User:Kafziel#Things that make me laugh) for deletion, along with the pages of other users, and the discussion is located here. Your input on the matter would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Entry Request For Your Comments

Hi. I agreed with your comment in the Fox News entry about the inclusion of criticisms in the lead. While I don't think it is possible to build a consensus to get the info moved down into a separate section, I am currently building a consensus to at least have the "other side's" POV (critics that think Fox is relatively balanced) included with the current POV included in the lead to make the lead less one sided. I am not a fan of Fox News or of any particular media outlet, but the lead strikes me as very one-sided, and wikipedia should not be like that. If you want to, you can now go to the Fox News entry's talk page and "cast your vote" in the Request For Comment at the bottom of the page. It seems like the numbers are starting to favor the more balanced version of the lead I have proposed. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:74.73.18.198

Thanks for the help. Can you check the rest of his edits. Because it looks like he is on crusade here. I read a few of them and he added some mess to them. Igor Berger (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked hi edits and he is okay. Just a bit passionate about his editing. Also does not cite sources, so I will leave him a not. Thanks for the help, Igor Berger (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews

But you have to understand that when I went to one of the sources in that paragraph that said that Mizrahis were discriminated against in Israel, the page was not found. Should we have this sourxe in wikipedia. My source tells the truth. I said that Persian Jews support Israel and I provided a source which can be found. 74.73.18.198 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking on your talk page. No more drama...:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit

Regarding this edit, I ask what's the point of warning a user's third sock account who, goes on a POV rampage gets several warnings and eventually a block, takes another sock account, gets warnings and eventually another block, then gets a third sock account, what's the purpose of warning that user's third sock? And I'm not sure how the "released after block" is, but it was a blocked user that's editing, so I don't really understand how that applies either?

Not that this really matters anymore, the user has seemingly stopped after the page has been semiprotected, I just wanted to hear an answer from you. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses are not sock accounts. They're IP addresses. Most are dynamic by nature, and there's no point in blocking a particular IP after just one edit when (as you say) the editor can simply switch IPs and continue editing. Semi-protection is a more reliable solution when it's an ongoing problem, but AIV isn't the place to request it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not socks by nature, but they are socks when a user gets blocked and just switches to another one to dodge the block, per WP:SOCK, section "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". There's a difference between a user contributing through a dynamic IP address and one editing disruptively through one to evade a block. But yes semiprotection is a better solution if the user's activities are confined to one article, this time they were. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection

206.230.62.2 (talk · contribs) has made a request at WP:RFPP for the semi-protection on this page to be removed. IP claims to be Avriette (talk · contribs) and says that you know him/her. If you keep it protected, you might want to consider setting up a second page for new and IP users. Hope all is well, - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As it happens, I have been running mediawiki instances for work, and writing documentation for same. I guess I just was curious about what's going on here, and I find that the scenery is drastically changed. Not necessarily for the better... It seems that there's an even bigger bureaucratic overhead than there was before. As you're an editor I trust not to be ... well, I don't think I need to clarify that, let's just say I have respect for you. At any rate, I was wondering whether you could tell me what you thought of the place as compared to I guess a year or so ago when I pulled out. If you'd rather have such a conversation in email, I can be reached from my page. ... aa:talk 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear from you!

I do think you're right about the bureaucracy running amok. Everybody is so involved in circle-jerk debates that they use bots and templates for damn near everything else. It got to be a bit much for me, and my time on Wikipedia has been very limited lately, so for the last several months I've pretty much stayed clear of the politics. Every so often I accidentally step on a land mine, but we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here and that's still my main focus. For the most part, I'm blissfully unaware of any of the big controversies - in fact, the only WP: page I have on my watchlist is AIV. I leave the rest of that stuff to people who enjoy all the bullshit. So in that respect, I guess I actually can't comment on the state of things today, because I've been out of the game for a while. It was either that, or quit altogether.

I will say, though, that even though the community has changed for the worse, I think our content has changed for the better. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular you're working on that I could help with? In general, my interaction these days has been with topics I deal with at work and the other random articles I happen across. I noticed recently that ballistics information has been added to most of the rounds I was working on oh, maybe a year or so ago. And lots of the ships that didn't have images now do. Anyhow, pleased to see you're still around. ... aa:talk 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working on any one thing in particular, just sort of haphazardly maintaining the status quo. I don't have as much time for Wikipedia as I used to, so no big projects at the moment. Anyway, it's good to see you're back! I guess I can update my userpage... Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Vandalism Edits From IP Address 211.21.238.26

While I understand where to report multiple vandalism edits from this IP Address, I would like to request that at least one administrator follow-up this case. There have been many bad faith edits from this user and I believe that this IP Address should be blocked from anonymous editing. Does a one year anonymous-editing block sound good? Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been no edits from that address for weeks. I suggest you read our policy on blocks, because you're extremely reactionary when it comes to vandalism; one bit of foolishness and you're screaming for blood. Please realize that it takes an awful lot more than that to block a shared IP for an entire year. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that. I mistakenly identified the IP Address, although I know who the edits came from (the user was supposedly using a proxy server and created multiple accounts). And yes, it's quite darn funny to realize "one bit of foolness screams out for blood." Prowikipedians (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hi, I've been recently scrolling through Wikipedia and I've have been considering about having you delete my "block logs," since they have been causing problems and mistaken accusations when I applied for a request for VandalProof. As you may have heard, the Kaohsiung American School article has recently been undergoing vandalism for a week, until recently, I found out and reverted all the bad faith edits. This has been very frustrating to deal with, as it turns out, I have to manually revert all the edits. At request, can you delete my block logs for me? Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer to this is no, I can't.

The long answer is, I have no reason to anyway because your block was not a mistake and therefore the "accusations" are not mistakes. You were given a second chance, but that doesn't mean you never did anything wrong to begin with. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

? Perhaps this was over-judged? As you've have mentioned, "one vandalism edit and you're screaming for blood," does that make sense that you blocked me when you perceived my edits to be "unethical?" I do understand the Wikipedia policies, after I was unblocked from editing when you posted those articles for me to look at. Unfortunately, I didn't expect Wikipedia to invite noobs with a block and not a message on what-to-do. Before then, I never heard of any. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at my entire contribution history, if you wish. The edits I made to the Pope article may be misinformation, but clearly, my original intention was 100% not for vandalism. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me - I haven't blocked you lately. The block was justified at the time and it was for considerably more than just one edit. The fact that I removed it doesn't mean I was wrong, it means I was being nice. And clearly, in this case, the decision not to give you Vandal Proof was correct. As I've noted above, you are far too reactionary and would likely abuse the tool. I doubt the decision was made solely on the basis of your block log.

There's nothing you can say or do that will get your block record erased. If you doubt that, take a look at my own block record - I was accidentally blocked about a year ago (and it was a real accident, and the blocking admin apologized for the error) and it's still on my record. It doesn't matter - your block record won't be held against you unless you continue editing irresponsibly. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. I was very reactive to the block because of another user harrassing me. Most users, I see, are told at least once. I wouldn't abuse the tool, whether or not had I gained access to the tool. Had I done so, it would conflict with my moral ethics and religion. :) Prowikipedians (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, are there any ways to prevent users from editing "anonymously," or using IP addresses to edit (especially the use of proxy servers)? I've been dealing with vandalism from article Kaohsiung American School lately, which the vandalized article contains links to innappropiate sites that would be innappropiate for minors. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions like that are why you can't be trusted with VandalProof. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyways...I have been requesting for a page to be created (85°C - A famous coffee chain-store in Taiwan and China; similar to Starbucks), however, that hasn't been approved yet. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_Economics/Businesses_and_Organizations . Prowikipedians (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More than one edit? Clarify, please. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax -> Rezistenta

Hi, Kafziel! I am sorry to bother you about this, but do you, by any chance, recall a user named "Adrianzax," whom you blocked many times for edit warring and incivility on Romani people and Romanians? Now he has changed his username to Rezistenta, but his "contributions" don't seem to be getting much better.

While he was still "Adrianzax," he had threatened some other fellow Wikipedians via Wikimail. Two of these people and I sent a letter to ArbCom, per the advice of Jimmy Wales himself, but to no avail. Now he has been edit warring on Romania in the Middle Ages; it seems to have stopped only after I sent a message to the other user, whom I warned about Adrianzax's/Rezistenta's behavior towards people who revert him. (I didn't want to see someone else being threatened).

I think this situation is far too serious to be solved by a simple block. In principle, I think he should be banned, but I'm also worried about the safety of those he has threatened. I don't want him to get banned and then go off on a killing spree or something.

So, could you offer me any advice as to what to do? --Kuaichik (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he wasn't banned as Adrianzax then he's allowed to start fresh with a new username. I've looked at his edits and I'm not seeing anything overly disruptive, at least in the past few weeks. He's got an agenda, clearly, but that's allowed (within reason). Of course, I'm not familiar with any of the correspondence outside Wikipedia, so for all I know there might be something to that. I don't really have any good advice other than Jimbo's suggestion to contact the ArbCom. They tend to be pretty quick to dismiss a case with the slightest bit of weakness, though, so if you go to them for help you should expect to dedicate a fair amount of time to it. It's often more trouble than it's worth but, again, I don't know the whole background. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way... on a completely unrelated note... if you want to link to a category, just put a : inside the brackets. So [[:Category:Wikipedians]] becomes Category:Wikipedians. - K.

Hmm...I see. Thank you for all your help (and for the advice on how to link to a category)! :) --Kuaichik (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

I have been tired of reverting vandalism edits from Kaohsiung American School. I have tried to get the other administrators to create a block/semi-protect the article, however, that has not happened. May you take a look at the history page of Kaohsiung American School and semi-protect the page? Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already protected it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Angel Baby sample.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angel Baby sample.ogg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fenway Park

The user's vandalizing of my user page, along with some of his other edits (he just started a day or two ago) indicate trolling. And it's not a content dispute as such - he's making analysis that is not even covered in the citation. It's trolling. I turned him in to WP:ANI, and if it continues I'll turn him in to WP:AIV Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What he did to your userpage is vandalism. But it has no bearing on the content change in the article itself. Our policy clearly lists things like stubbornness and bold edits as not vandalism. A repeat of actual vandalism will get him a block, but that still wouldn't mean you're free to violate 3RR. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

An alternative, if he persists, would be to replace his bogus citation with a "fact" tag. And what if he starts reverting that? Speaking of which, I'm assuming you know he blanked out the 3RR warning on his page. Whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's okay - blanking the warning means he saw it.

There are venues for dispute resolution if it comes to that, but I doubt that will be necessary. He's only been editing for two days; everyone needs a little time to adjust to the environment here. This will blow over in no time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What would be more interesting is a site that actually has a comparison of the square footage of ballparks. I would certainly like to see something like that. But the citation he gave only gives the dimensions, and makes no claim of Fenway being the "smallest field", which I'm not convinced is true in any case. That claim, as the user himself states, is his "analysis" of it, and analysis is against the rules. If it goes to dispute resolution, his approach would be shot down quickly. Hopefully it won't have to go through that nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Fenway is the smallest park in the majors; not sure about the field area, though. Yankee Stadium may be smaller. A site comparing the stats would be good, but not necessary; if it can be established that the other fields are bigger, citations of the dimensions could be enough, until someone can come up with a source that disputes it. I'll see what I can find. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that Fenway's seating capacity is the smallest, but so far I'm not finding any information on square footage of the playing field. And the Astros ballpark has similarly cozy dimensions. Keep in mind that Fenway's deepest point in center is 420, and the so-called "average" right field distance is 380. So it is not at all intuitively obvious that it has the "smallest playing field". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if you're going just by dimensions, compare Tropicana Field with Fenway and it appears to be smaller overall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It's too late at night for math.

I hear the Rays' new stadium is going to be even smaller, though. If it gets built. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

They might as well play in a high school field. Then they might fill the place on a good night. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It turns out the guy was a sock (which I suspected but didn't say) and is now blocked indefinitely. [31] Semper fi! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel White

Good work! I nominated it for DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One of your 3RR closures is being cited as a good example

Hello Kafziel. There is a debate raging at WT:BLP on whether BLP reverts should be an exception when doing 3RR enforcement. The question raised by Kim Bruning was whether 3RR closers ever pay attention to the BLP exception. I couldn't resist answering the Kim Bruning challenge. Your decision was one of the two favorable examples that I discovered: the Alansohn-Xcstar case. I picked out this line as showing that you were recognizing the BLP exception: The article itself may not be about a living person, but the information Xcstar has been adding to it is. Since the information does not include reliable sources, Alansohn was justified in removing it. In going through old decisions it was surprising hard to find 'pure' examples where it was obvious the editor was blockable unless BLP reverts were not counted. Thanks for providing the pure example. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help! My feelings on the subject of BLP itself are mixed (I think its importance gets blown waaaay out of proportion) but as long as it's policy, we should certainly allow for it.

I would imagine examples are hard to come by because most of the time it's just someone inserting unsourced nonsense, so they would usually end up at AIV rather than 3RR. Still, I'm surprised there aren't quite a few more. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama semi-protection request

Article Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama has been vandalized repeatedly by several registered users very recently. Take a look at the history page -Revision history of Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I refute the accusation of vandalism.

My reverting the changes to the previous state was not vandalism. Had you have listened to ‎the show George Lamb had mentioned the page and saw it as fitting to the style of the show. ‎Taking these parts out are more a case for vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gognoid (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you mean "dispute", not "refute". The latter implies proof positive.

It doesn't matter what George Lamb finds fitting. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the meaning of refute is ‘’”to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion ‎or charge”’’.

I always saw Wikipedia as a place to display facts and opinions, not to oppress ‎people attempting to share knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gognoid (talk • contribs) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right - to prove to be false. You haven't.

Wikipedia is a place to display notable, verifiable facts that have been previously published by other reliable sources. Nothing else. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since my comments were “verified” by an extremely “reliable source” in BBC Radio6 music ‎could you convey a valid argument (for once)? This is laughable. ‎

Also, you can’t say “That’s right” when your initial argument is wrong. It is proof when my ‎statements are accurate.‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gognoid (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Just came across this -- Great stuff! What template is that? SQL^{Query me!} 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, glad you like it. It's my own invention, kind of a satire of one of Phaedriel's overly-friendly warning messages. The template is {{User:Kafziel/vacation|(duration)|(sig)}} Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is great stuff! I can just count the seconds before somebody is complaining about it at WP:ANI. But it is nicer-looking than the large red splotchy thing. And conceivably, it leaves the departing editor with a better impression of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Its great, def going at into my userspace template collection. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been using it for over a year, with no complaints so far. My sense of humor does tend to irk some people (like WP:GRIEF, or my list of things that make me laugh) but it's always been supported by the majority. If editing Wikipedia isn't at least a little bit fun, there's no reason to do it! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Hi again! Er, I'm not an admin and can't add these to your user page, so do you mind if I just drop them off here? [Barnstars moved to user page] For some reason, I feel inclined to say something more, so I'll just say "thanks!" once again :) --Kuaichik (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks! That was a really nice thing to see when I walked in. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

toilet paper

Why do you keep reverting my edit I'm adding to the article which fits under that section, do I need a reference or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankgrimes203 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion article

Hi. I'm requesting this article to be permanently deleted from Wikipedia. I believe that the information provided in Wikipedia can create serious problems, including the danger of loosing lives and law infringement problems. Firstly, Wikipedia articles are commonly located in the first or second display result in the Google search engine. Had someone really have thought of doing an action like that, the result will/may be horrific. Secondly, in many countries, assisting a person's death is most commonly regarded as illegal. If Wikipedia hosts this article, it means that "it supports it." Wikipedia has continually stated that the law should be followed "in a reasonable manner," especially when dealing with "copy-paste" issues and image copyright situations. Third. For what reasons would Wikipedia.org propose that the article should be included in en.wikipedia.org? Whether or not if it is considered appropiate, doesn't this article belong in a "WikiHow" or other sister projects? Please take action as soon as possible. The mission that Wikipedia is to distribute information in a meaningful way. In addition, if Wikipedia.org disagrees on removing the article, that would violate and contradict one of Wikipedia's/Flordia's (database location) policies. I request that this article be removed immediately before any other further harm can be done to the international community. Thank you. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at this: Wikipedia is not a how-to-manual. If Wikipedia were to continue keeping the article, Wikipedia would be contradicting itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowikipedians (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Three pieces of advice:

First: If you want an article deleted, make a request. You can't just ask an admin.

Second: Wikipedia is not censored.

Third: Don't bother. You can go through the proper channels if you want, but you will be turned down. I guarantee it. There's nothing wrong with that article that would lead to its deletion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is the content of the article, not how it is being written. It seems it's becoming a "Wiki-How," which violates Wikipedia's policies. But thanks for the advice anyways. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Sorry about all the formatting errors I kept making on your user page :-P --Kuaichik (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel White

On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nathaniel White, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible TyrusThomas4lyf sockpuppet

Hi, I need some help with a possible TyrusThomas4lyf sockpuppet. Fact finder 1780 (talk · contribs · logs) is currently editing on Kobe Bryant. Judging from his editing pattern, I am quite sure he is another sock of TyrusThomas4lyf. This diff shows that Fact finder 1780 is making the same changes as another sock did some time before, here. Can you please look into this when you have time? Thanks in advance.—Chris! _ct 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Kafziel/archive5, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And a special thankyou for being no. 112 :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Breathing Room

Hi There,

I appreciate that you're trying not to use "copyrighted" material. But I am the writer director of both the film, and the text that I am submitting. I love that the text exists elsewhere, but I assure you that it is mine. I would love to submit it rather than come up with something new. Let me know if there is some way I can prove to you I'm telling the truth. All I can offer at this moment is my word.

Thanks,

Twomancrew (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Gabriel CowanTwomancrew (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you would go about establishing that. You may be able to find an answer to that by asking here (or at least someone will be able to point you in the right direction).

You're also going to need to establish notability, or the article will be deleted by the community whether it's a copyright violation or not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW ... I see that you deleted ALL my posts. That's just mean. I spent a long time doing those posts --- and there was no possibility for copyright violation on the other ones. Why did you do that? I'm here, trying to be a productive member of this community ... and this is how I'm greeted? I'm really sad that I spent so much time working on these things. I hope hope hope I can get them back. Please respond and let me know how I have offended the community. I understand that it appears as if I infringed on some copyright ... but I assure you, you are jumping to an inaccurate conclusion. I own the film. I wrote the text. I should not be punished. Please help me out here.

Twomancrew (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)GabeTwomancrew (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fulfilling the notability is not a problem. IMDB has these films up on its sight.

Why did you take down the Gabriel Cowan page?

The Geoff Cowan page is not a copyright violation. His resume is used at various places on the internet ... but it is not copyrighted. It's his resume for crying out loud. I wrote it with my father. This is very accusatory.

Please let me know what was wrong with the Gabriel Cowan page. I worked a long time to put that together ... and in an instant it was gone.

Thanks

Twomancrew (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)GabeTwomancrew (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't done to be mean - some of the articles were deleted as copyright violations and some were deleted because they did not assert notability. Everything that is written down is copyrighted, including the Geoff Cowan CV (which was copied word-for-word from a different site). According to our policy, that's grounds for immediate deletion. It's nothing personal.

I explained how you can get them back when I left that message on your talk page: You can request a review and the community will decide whether it was proper. If they feel it warrants another look, the content will be restored with no argument from me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that, according to the guidelines I gave you, being listed on IMDB is not sufficient for an article here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

I have to say that this is the absolute best indef blocked message i have ever seen. Hooray for the relaxing exit towards vacation, instead of the stop sign containing only harsh words! :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL Great block template

here, I laughed so hard. Great imagination :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to "followup" this user

Hi. I have a request to "follow-up" user "Coolgamer". As I have seen from his talk pages, he appears to be disruptive in his uploading of "copyrighted" images use that violate Wikipedia policy and has appeared to use talk pages inappropriately. Please follow up or consider a block. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I see you helped to deal with Prowikipedians vandalism. Thanks for that. I'd frankly like to see the entire subject in the discussion page on Suicide methods deleted for major failures of policy, namely, NPOV, be polite, no personal attacks, and be welcoming. To have someone start an entire topic of discussion simply labeled "I strongly dislike this article" and basically demand that it be deleted, then compare anyone who says otherwise to a murderer and shout at them is simply ridiculous and has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. I wanted to put in a vandalism review request, but I can't seem to find the form to place on Prowikipedians talk page. Perhaps you could help? Coolgamer (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I'll do my best to keep an eye on the situation. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I once saw "I strongly dislike this article" before on the discussion page on Suicide methods before I created it. In fact, it was more of a mere imitation. Post a message on my talk page if there are any concerns. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Marshall McGearty Lounge

Nyah. --dfg (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't say that rings any bells. Can't say I'm impressed with the current version, either.

You should note that, according to the guideline, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." As it is, it probably wouldn't stand up to an AFD. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that meets the criteria for notability. I'm content to leave it alone, but I wouldn't go bragging about it if I were you; someone is liable to nominate it. Or just delete it again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You should note that the CSD guideline recommends notifying the article's author when a notice is added, which you never did. Also, I had a feeling you wouldn't bother checking the sources or even the talk page which contains a third secondary source, to which I just added a fourth, and since incorporated into the article. The willful ignorance in your comments confirms my suspicions that you're part of the problem and the reason why this project will never improve past its current mediocrity. --dfg (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man, what are you looking for here? I deleted it a year ago, at someone else's request. It soundly failed A7 (and, looking at the deleted version, was extremely spammy as well). You should note that the users who mark articles for deletion are encouraged to inform the creators... there's no requirement for the deleting admin to do so. I'm not the one who tagged it. And clearly it didn't shake the foundations of your existence anyway, since it took you 15 months to notice.

I did look at your sources this time around, which is why I didn't delete it. Both of them were trivial at best, but the article as a whole makes a reasonable assertion of notability. By the way, sources posted on talk pages don't count; if you can be "arsed" to do something with them, by all means feel free (as I see you finally did, some hours later), but posting external links on a talk page won't save an article from deletion. Neither will self-important grandstanding.

Look: when all is said and done, it's still a crap article. You know it and I know it. It's five sentences long, and its notability (even with four sources) is a bit sketchy. As I said, it doesn't bother me; I just warned you that it might bother someone else. Save the arguments for the AFD, if it ever happens. Either way, I don't need to hear about it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as people like you, who can't even interpret a guideline properly, are the ones in charge, Wikipedia is going to remain stuck in second gear. You're an admin so I really shouldn't have to spell it out for you, but here's a clue: together the phrases "the first cigarette lounge in the country" (from the article) and "just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" (from the A7 guideline) do NOT equal "soundly failed". Your attitude that stub = crap is ridiculous. And spammy? I don't have access to the old version, but the one I found on archive.org didn't even have a link to the business' website. These are just your statements I'm dismantling here. There are better arguments to be made, indeed, if there's ever an AfD. --dfg (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right - it's five sentences of pure, unadulterated genius. I wish I could write such splendid prose. Congratulations on your truly marvelous accomplishment. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you gonna add a PWN userbox for stubs, too? Congrats, you've refused to address the substance of my argument, a tact often used by losers. If you really think this is about the length and quality of the article stub in its present form, you should be ashamed to call yourself an administrator of this thing. Then again, perhaps it's fitting. --dfg (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I already told you I'm not interested in any arguments you may have (and therefore am not interested in addressing the "substance" of said arguments), because a) I didn't tag either version for deletion, and b) the only action I took on it was over a year ago. It's too late for complaints and too late for arguments, so I suggest you move on. Congratulations on creating a stub on Wikipedia. It's a truly remarkable accomplishment. Really. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm so proud of it I've created and devoted a section of my userpage to a category of stubs and non-notable crap I started and then not worked on for months or years at a time. Oh wait, that's what you did. In my time here, I've yet to encounter a single admin who wasn't so smugly self-important that they could admit that they were so clearly wrong from the start that they actually apologized to begin with, instead of protractedly and lamely making excuses. Judging by your attitude, I doubt I ever will. People like you, who constantly belittle and undermine the positive contributions of casual editors like myself only reinforce my belief that this "encyclopedia" is a massive waste of time. I will move on, but re-creating an article that never should have been deleted in the first place by people who can't even understand the guidelines they helped define will be my parting shot, at least for a few more months. --dfg (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right - maybe the best way to fix Wikipedia is to show up every six months or so and act like a douchebag. Maybe that'll get things on the right track. Well, you try it your way and I'll keep doing it mine. We'll see how it goes. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowing that you're populating Wikipedia with articles on C-list actors, novelty cakes, children's toys, and military minge gives me hope for a better world. --dfg (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, not everything can be as notable as a smoking lounge that was open for 3 years. But I try. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

response

I left a reply to your post on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prowikipedians Prowikipedians (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Prowikipedians

Prowikipedians has been harassing and contacting other users regarding the Suicide Methods talk page. Also, I just saw WHY you had taken action. I knew he/she had left a legal message on my talk page, but to go behind my back and try to get me banned for having a different opinion is just wrong. This is just going to continue, directly or indirectly, and I'd like to know what action can be taken. For starters the entire talk page on the subject needs cleared, as it's just a bitter argument. Coolgamer (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the law I referred was a reference. ONLY. I am not trying to ban Coolgamer for the sake because he has a different opinion than mines. And the reference on "this is going to continue" is WRONG. I haven't been editing on that talk page recently. Plus, you can not just state that "starters" do not know what to do. If this were a different article, ie President Bush, stating that "he favors this" more than "this" while another source tells the opposite, then that be different. The article on Suicide methods is a "controversial issue." Which is why I have questioned why Wikipedia doesn't have a "murder methods" article. And again, the reason why I stated that Wikipedia should take off that article was more primarily concerned if Wikipedia was being cited as a number one source if something like that had happened, leaving Wikipedia publicized by the media and with heavy criticisms from the international community, which may actually bring down the Wikipedian system had something like that happened. Prowikipedians (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The talk page you are talking about hasn't been edited since 28 May 2008, date of law reference removal. Prowikipedians (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Quit posting vague threats on my talk page. Coolgamer (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These aren't even vague threats. And keep in mind that I haven't been following up on you until recently you replied. I have this, this and this to edit/add information. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think the issue can just fade away if everyone lets it. We can revisit this if the problem comes up again, but let's hope it doesn't come to that. For now, I think the problem is solved. No harm was done, so there's no need to post any more replies to this discussion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Anoshirawan

I wish to discuss the matter of the indef block with User talk:Anoshirawan and request that the talk page be unprotected. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's been a reasonable amount of input since last August, from Number 57, Ronnotel, Jossi, Spartaz, MastCell, Toddst1, Jayron32, Sandstein, FisherQueen, and myself. Nothing but more edit warring and disruption after each of the previous seven blocks, and denial of any wrongdoing in each of the five unblock requests. Page protection is specifically warranted in the case of abusing the unblock tag, and I don't see anything to say the abuse wouldn't continue. You're welcome to put in a request or start an RFC, but I don't think it's worth your time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. In that case might I recommend a small summary regarding the block. I tried to search ANI's archives for the username and I checked his most recent contribs, and was very confused that they were suddenly indef blocked. I'll probably propose this to Toddst1, but even in light of your comment here, I'm surprised something like a topical ban wasn't tried first. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very sudden to me; he was blocked for 24h, then 72, then another 72, then a week, then another 72, then another week, then a month, and now indef. That's a whole lot of chances. After that he abused the unblock template, and is currently using an anonymous IP[32] to get around the block. It's a single-purpose account; a topical ban wouldn't work. I've never had any interaction with this user other than reviewing one of his unblock requests, but I took a very extensive look at his contribs when he was first reported (so extensive that someone else blocked him before I finished) and I see nothing that would indicate any of the earlier blocks had the slightest effect at all. In fact, in one of his unblock requests, he says that a month-long block would be fine... because a month-long block doesn't mean anything to him. That tells me the only solution is an indef block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for closing the discussion for me. (smiley face) Prowikipedians (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your User Page

Under your user page (User:Kafziel), entitled "About Me," your statement "My userpage has been vandalized a bunch of times. This one is my favorite," redirects to here with the following statement:

The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "User:Kafziel (Diff: 84064486, 84129942)".

This might be because no page has yet been created with this name, in which case you can start it by clicking the "edit this page" link.

If it is a recently changed page, trying again in a minute or two will usually work. Alternatively, you may have followed an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted. If this revision has been deleted, an explanation may be found in the deletion log for "User:Kafziel".

Revisions that contain personal information disclosed without permission may have been permanently removed.

If none of the above is the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this using the procedure given at Wikipedia:Bug reports, making note of the URL.

I think that you may want to edit your own talk page. I prefer not to fix the edit, unless you are open to do so. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR: Sorry, Kafziel, I didn't know

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and I didn't know anything on the 3 revert rule. Anyway, I can't be accused of anything for trying to put an NPOV warning on an article that is not neutral, as you can see in this discussion page:

The whole talk page is devoted to discuss whether the article is neutral or not, and that is a strong evidence of the lack of neutrality in the article.

I can't be accused either for correcting a very obvious error, as you can see in this talk:

Talk:Monroe Doctrine#Accused of vandalism for correcting an evident error: The possession of an existing European power, Britain (1833), DID NOT PREDATE the Doctrine

Smackyrod (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Article

Ok. I understand that. Consider deleting Blue & Gold article. Does not have THIRD-PARTY SOURCES. 210.64.233.207 (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That page has been tagged to be merged since April. It's done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page

My page was deleted due to "blatant copyright infringement". I cited the source and provided a webpage link to the source. The person is Neal Creque and it was a biography. He is mentioned in several wiki-articles, but never had any information about him.

BTW - I am his daughter, and I didn't mean any harm. It was much easier to use the source from All Music Guide so the information could be verified rather than to write something completely new.

CreninCrenin (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I didn't delete that article. Cryptic did, so I can't really offer much of an opinion there.

If you feel an article is warranted, you can request a deletion review and make your case to the community. You would, however, need to rewrite the information in your own words or, better yet (because of the conflict of interest), have a neutral party write the article; you can request the article here, and someone else will find the necessary sources and work on it. I hope that helps, whatever you decide to do. Happy editing! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Infringement report

Dear Kafziel,

I am of an opinion that user SatuSuro had conducted infringement. He had mislead and misinformed us. It seems to me that He is very Java centric and tried to conduct ethnocide to other tribes in Indonesia by his wiriting or edit in Wikipedia. It seems to me that he also tried to terorized hadiyana, another very contributive wikipedia user who makes Wikipedia information concerning Sunda clearer. SatuSuro is very destructive. I hope you can take action for his infringement.

Thank you for your consideration, --Naruto kobayashi (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I think that is a total misinterpretation - and I am not sure about the adequate lack of understanding by either Hadiyana or the above complainant of either english or the genral processes of wikipedia.

They are most welcome to leave a complaint at my talk page (which neither has done - a good read of dispute resolution process is that first you speak to the other editor - neither have tried to do so ) - and both will have to be very careful about their usage of the english langauge and perhaps also readup about what wikipedia is about.

It seems to me that He is very Java centric and tried to conduct ethnocide to other tribes in Indonesia by his wiriting or edit in Wikipedia. It seems to me that he also tried to terorized

Such an item is either a very big joke, or otherwise a very low level english user version of WP:PA.

It would need some very careful explanation in proper english - as it does not make sense in the usual processes available to wikipedia editors - or in fact those two users might have to explain what they are up to. SatuSuro 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pao-Chung Chen article

Kafziel, would you mind following up on the Pao-Chung Chen article? (It has recently been created). Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Delete it? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm currently working on it. Prowikipedians (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Article

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder seems to have been merged together with Attention-Deficit Disorder. They're similar, however, they are different disorders. In your opinion and experience, do you think there should be a split? Prowikipedians (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ADD is an outdated term for ADHD that is no longer used. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta II

Sorry to bother you with this again, but he seems to have been edit warring on Origin of the Romanians, causing the page to be protected twice. He also appears to have violated 3RR on Romani people and to have used many inappropriate edit summaries (see e.g. this, this, and possibly even this.

He may not have been doing "anything overly disruptive" when I first contacted you about him, but do his latest edits make any difference? --Kuaichik (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all what you're doing right now is called Wikistalking and Harassment. Second I don't know you and never interacted with you but you're keep permitting yourself doing such remarks about me like the one you did over Here. I didn't caused the protection of the article "origin of romanians" for the simple reason that I wasn't the one disrupting it in the first place and because I was the one who contacted the admins about the situation going on over there and they decided it's necessary to protect it. On Roma people I din't broke any 3RR rule, and such accusations and inventions which cannot be proved in any way and which contradict the reality cannot be made forever without some serious repercussions. Have a good day Rezistenta (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit does all the money Rezistenta (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hi! I've read somewhere on one troll's talk page how you fought in the Kosovo war. Don't get me wrong and don't answer this if you find me picky: what was it like? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hot, dirty, and complicated. A bit like my first marriage. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a lot of this at the beginning and a lot of this at the end. Oh, and we spent one lovely afternoon in a stand-off with Russian forces near an abandoned school (no fighting that day, thankfully - we just sat about 100m apart and stared at each other). I think that was in Kamenica. But it was mostly driving hummers through crowded streets, sleeping in an abandoned MUP headquarters in Gnjilane, buying cigarettes from kids, listening to ignorant redneck Marines heckle the muezzin during salat, and trying to find a decent loaf of bread. Lots of messed-up buildings, lots of yelling "stani ili putsam!", and a little bit of putsam-ing now and then. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of McDonald's Menu Song

An article that you have been involved in editing, McDonald's Menu Song, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about it, but thanks for the heads-up. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The user Rezistenta - how much is enough?

Hi! I would like to ask that the user Rezistenta (ex Adrianxaz) be banned from Wikipedia. I am not very familiar with the Wikipedia rules about this, but I will present the problem here. The user Rezistenta has always been a trouble maker, he had many conflicts with other users and administrators which resulted in many blockings. His rude and disrespectful attitude has been noticed by many of the people who got into “discussions” with him. But it is another problem that I would like to raise here: the constant (more or less subtle) vandalism that the does to the Romani people related articles. And to show this vandalism I have to present a problem that is a little more complicated: that of the name of the “Romani people”.

Gypsies = Romani people + Irish travelers + Yeniche people + etc..

Romani people = Roma + Sinti + Manouche + etc...

This ethnic group who was knowen in history mostly as “Gypsies” has started to wake up and asked to be called by their own endonyms. The various branches of this ethnic group call themselves: Roma (in Eastern Europe), Sinti (in Germany), Manouche (in Northern France), Romnichals (in Britain), etc. Al these branches use in their dialects the term “Romani” as an adjective, so the term “Romani people” became the natural name of all this branches. But there is a problem: the term “Romani” is very similar with “Romanian”, and so some Romanians (I have accentuated some Romanians, because I myself am Romanian and I don't heave this problem) fear that they shall be confused with the Romanies. There is even a theory that there is a Hungarian-Jewish-Romani conspiracy to steal the Romanian identity, or even to create a Romani homeland in our country!!! And so these Romanian nationalists had tried by any means to hide or deny the term Romani. They had tried to impose the term Gypsy, but this was rejected quickly, because it is sometimes considered offensive and it is also used for more ethnic groups, not just the Romanies (Irish travelers, Yeniche people, etc). Because the term Gypsy has been rejected, they came with another idea, to use the term Roma (or Roma people) for the entire ethnic group, after all Roma is better that Romani for this purpose. Roma are the most numerous branch (with 60-70% of the entire Romani population they are more than all the other groups taken together), but nevertheless they are not the only Romani group. After the fall of the Comunist block in Eastern Europe, Roma became one of the major problems of the entire Europe, and so they become the most talked about Romani group. So much were they (and their problems) mediatized that the term Roma (or Roma people) come to be used in some places as an ethnonym for the entire Romani people, although strictly speaking only Eastern Europe Romanies are Roma. The Romanian nationalists used this apparent interchangeability between Roma ans Romani to impose the title Roma people (Roma people is also grammatically incorrect since Roma is the plural, so “Roma people” would be like “Romanians people”) for the article. But now that they forced the move from “Romani people” to “Roma people”, they had to hide the fact that only Easter Europe Romanies are Roma, other way it would have become obvious the fact that the current title is incorrect.

Rezistenta's subtle vandalism:

So here I shall present Rezistenta's contribution to this game. On the section “Population” of the article he supported these groups: Kalderash, Gitanos, Sinti, Romnichal and Erlides, acording to this source:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qHUdwpiYCtIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Gypsies&sig=eHASVZ6GAkDwWOKuXBgaaPFIAL0

But when one looks to the page 8 of this source sees this:

An English Gypsy may call himself a Romanichal (Gypsy man), a word also used in the USA, Canada and Auslralia by Gypsies stemming from English Gypsy immigrants. On the Continent, the old-established Gypsies have a variety of names for themselves, such as cale (=blacks) in Spain and Southern France and kaaale in Finland, Sinti in Germany, and manouches in France. In many countries there are numerous representatives from a more rent wave of Gypsy migration, originating in eastern Europe a hundred and more years ago, who call themselves Rom or Roma and whose speech is much influenced by the impact of their ancestors long stay in Rumanian speaking lands - hence their designarion as Vlach (= Wallachian) Rom. The word Rom itself has nothing to do with Rumania but means, literally, 'man' or 'husband'. These Vlach Rom are subdivided into several different tribes: Kalderash, Lovara, Curara, etc

So, it is:

Roma - from Eastern Europe

Sinti - in Germany

Manouches - France

Romanichals - mainly in Britain

Calé - Spain and southern France

Kaale in Finland (This was already in the article at hard to categorize groups)

The same source, also shows that the Kalderash are only a subgroup of the Vlax Roma (The Roma (yes, Roma) the lived on the territory of present day Romania), and the Elides don't appear at all. After I've made this modifications Rezistenta did this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roma_people&diff=220545303&oldid=220543104

Saying that I am off the source. I have tried to reason with him and asked him to read the source. The result: he simply rejected my edits.

He did just the same with my edit in the genetics section saying again that is not sustained by the sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roma_people&diff=220248029&oldid=220243032

I don't even what he didn't find in the sources (if he read them), because everything that I've written was backed up by the sources.

What is funny is that one of the sources also presents the major divisions of this ethnic groups:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/2/5

In the section “Discussion” it saids: Individual groups can be classified into major metagroups: the Roma of East European extraction; the Sinti in Germany and Manouches in France and Catalonia; the Kaló in Spain, Ciganos in Portugal and Gitans of southern France; and the Romanichals of Britain. Any source that will make a clasification will show the same thing, that only the Eastern Europe Romanies are Roma. I don't know how Rezistenta read the article.

Anyway, the truth is that Rezistenta knows that Roma are only the eastern Europe branch (just like all the other Romanians that pretend they don't). When they tried to move the article to Gypsies, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roma_people#Requested_move:_Roma_people_-.3E_Gypsies

He saids: This article is about Gypsies, not about Roma, not all gypsies (e.g. from Eastern Europe) are Roma So he knows that Roma is the Eastern Europe branch of the Gypsies.

But this is something that he always did. He always changes his statements according to the context just to impose his ideas. For example, about the entire family Rom/Roma/Romani he came with 3 distinct theories why it should be avoided. He said that Rom comes from Dom and that Dom/Domani (?) should be used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dom_people#Lies.2C_Dom_.3D_Rom_.3D_The_same

He often suggested that the term was invented: “gypsies don't have a clue about the newly invented name for them”. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roma_people#Discussion_2

And he sugested here that Rom/Roma/Romani comes from Romanic peoples of Balkans (ruma, rum, aromanian, arman) and that it shouldn't be used because it is historically inaccurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roma_people#An_Etymology_Theory

So 3 distinct and self-excludindg points of view with just one scope: to deny the family Rom/Roma/Romani. If one looks through his commentaries will find plenty of examples of this kind. He doesn't care for logic and consistency, he will say anything that will serve his scope. I would say that the proper way to call his contributions is not even vandalism but sabotage.

And last but not least, I wold like to present the last comment he gave to me last night:

Akoan: Although, sometimes Roma and Romani are used as synonymous in various articles, a closer look shows that Roma are only the eastern Europe Romanies

Rezistenta: A closer look at their feet? fingernails? toes?... AKoan (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like also to bring to your attention the current reverts he is doing on my edits, in the last one naming me mad, deleting the sourced info I add there. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also it seems that made a 3RR there. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Kezfiel you should read the personal atacks this Desiprahl made towards many romanian editors, one being even an Administrator. Here and the reply by other neutral editor Istvan Here.

As it can be seen here, here, here,here Editors like Isvan or Zalktis any many others disagrees with this Desipraphral edits but he didn't care about other editors opinion and didn't seek concensous on talk page, furthemore when someone is refusing to accept his propaganda unsupported by references he appeals to their ethnic and national background like he did over here ".Quoting Desiphral With the Romanians is clear, they currently have some identity problems, but you?" Rezistenta (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not make any personal attacks, it only presented the current reality regarding the Romani-related articles. Yes, most of the Romanian users have some identity problems, the same as in real life and they act with impunity on Romani-related articles. It was a lot of discussion already there, but they keep reverting, moving pages at their please. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well this comment doesn't look very good " most of the Romanian users have some identity problems," . It's one of the many clear samples of Xenophoby and Racism towards Romanians by this editor and i'm amazed that such a disruptive and racist person is being able to continue his vandalism untroubled. No one agrees with your edits, perhaps only your friends kuaichik and akoan.. All others consider your attitude and personal attacks as intollerable like I showed before over Here.

Um...no offense meant to anyone in this comment, but why bother having this discussion on this talk page anyway? Kafziel has clearly not been editing much lately. He certainly hasn't responded to anything posted here since June 14. Why don't we let him be until he has more time to actually deal with the concerns voiced on his talk page? --Kuaichik (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. And considering that Rezistenta is currently blocked, I think it would be fair to wait until he comes back and will be able to defend himself. AKoan (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of having this conversation here, I suggest you make those same points in a Request for Comment. Kuaichik is right - I don't have a lot of time on Wikipedia right now, so an RFC might be a better way to get a number of different admins to weigh in and take a better look. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. Take it to RFC. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I will, unfortunately, I don't really have much time these days. AKoan (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know where this would fit best, because the problems with the user Rezistenta are diverse and I don't heave the time to read carefully all of the Wikipedia's articles related to these problems. That it why I thought I would try to ask an admin first. I think I shall try to resolve each one of these separately. Thanks for you time. AKoan (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

IP block request

Belated thanks for blocking "75.108.83.180" (contribs) for a month. But just as soon as the block expired, he started his vandalizing ways again. This IP user is a nuisance, and should be blocked again. I just can't take it to WP:AIV right now because it's not active as I write this. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An honest mistake

Thanks for the warning about the incorrectly placed tag. Also, I'm glad that you didn't feel the need to rub the mistake in my face. Shinerunner (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

EVula is the one who figured it out. And it's definitely no big deal - we've all done something like that at some point. Sure was funny, though! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lama Zopa article

HI. I realized that I made a mistake earlier in the Lama Zopa article stating why it should be moved. The term "Lama" cannot be applied to any monk whatsoever. It has to be earned through a rigorous "training" of three years and three months. So thus, this should be moved since it doesn't violate the naming conditions of "honorific terminologies." Prowikipedians (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Earning it doesn't make any difference. Lots of people earn their titles. For example, it takes a general decades to earn that, but none of them get to have them on their Wikipedia article titles. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about maintnence tags

I thought someone already fixed the article sorry! MyNameIsKyle (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to make sure you understood their importance. Happy editing! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

external links.

Howdy,

I'm attempting to be a new contributer to wiki. I run an editorial site which contains photo galleries of lots of musicians. I added a bunch of external links from various artist wiki pages to photo galleries of these artist live performances. For example, [Cool Kids] wiki page I linked to all of the editorial coverage of the Cool Kids on NickyDigital.com.

Another user then removed all of the external links I had placed calling them "advertising or inappropriate external links". Can you shed some light on this? Is what I was doing actually considered spamming or advertising?

Thanks in advance, --Nickydigital (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, technically it's considered spam. We have a pretty in-depth policy on external links, but basically what it boils down to is that they should never be added to any article unless they either a) meet the criteria for a reliable source and are used as such (yours doesn't meet that, by the way), or b) contain vitally important information that could not possibly be added to the Wikipedia article itself (very rare). Galleries of pictures are not considered vitally important. Instead of adding links, we ask editors to add information to the actual articles.

If you hold the copyright for those photos and are willing to license them for free use, you may be able to upload some of them here and insert them into the articles. See our Image Use Policy for more information on that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your really quick response.

I am the copyright holder and would be interested in licensing them for free use (only on the wiki pages). I would be interested in adding images to artists as seen on [this artist page]. I attempted to upload an imaged but I am not an Autoconfirmed user :/

Any suggestions? --Nickydigital (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Being autoconfirmed is a system thing; it will happen automatically once your account is four days old. As far as I know, it can't be sped up or slowed down. In the meantime, I'd recommend studying the different free license options available to you to decide which one suits you best. Keep in mind that images can only be added to articles when they are irrevocably licensed under one of those options; limited or fair-use licensed photos aren't accepted anymore.

Once your account is autoconfirmed, feel free to drop me a line if you need help with uploads. If I'm not available, you can also ask for help here. Hope that helps! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I'll let you know how it goes! --Nickydigital (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for content of page deleted from my userspace

Greetings! Admin JzG deleted this page from my user space last December without notifying me--either before or after. (I haven't been active on WP since early Dec 2007, so I didn't notice the deletion until just now.) According to his talk page, JzG appears to be no longer active on WP. Although the deletion log describes this page as a "laundry list of grudges," in fact I was using it to discreetly keep track of the actions of a group of editors whom I considered to be disruptively pushing a biased POV, in the event that it became necessary to pursue actions against them. I didn't advertise this page to anyone, and it was only linked to from a single word on my user page.

If any record still exists, I'd like to have the content of this page back, since I didn't keep a copy off-line. If keeping this info in my user space is truly unacceptable, I'll keep it off-line.

Thank you! Eseymour (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to undelete it or provide a copy, and I'll tell you why:

• If the page is that old, whatever was on it should be water under the bridge. Anything over six months ago wouldn't be held against anyone.
• If you have gripes against so many people you can't even keep track of them all, maybe you should let the little ones go.
• If one of your first actions after being gone for all this time is to check your grudge list, you might want to examine your priorities here.

Our policy states that Wikipedia is not a battleground. There's certainly no need to revisit old issues if you can't even remember them yourself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I strongly disagree with your characterization of that page as a "grudge list." If you've seen the page, you know it documents some seriously disruptive editing behavior. I had run into a group of editors who were collectively attempting to own a series of articles, and obstinately opposed even the most modest attempt to restore NPOV. Rather than edit-war with them, I decided to see if I could elucidate a pattern of activity among these users and bring a complaint through the dispute resolution process, if necessary.

Frankly, I take offense at your insinuation that the first thing I did on returning to Wikipedia was to "check my grudge list." No--I logged on several times during my period of inactivity, edited several articles, and it wasn't until I noticed a red link on my user page that I realized the page had been deleted.

The loss of the information on the page is not a huge deal. I can easily recreate and update it (and keep it off-line, as many other editors surely keep offline notes). But I strongly resent having a page deleted from my user space without any warning or notice. It's Orwellian in nature, and very detrimental to the kind of community which I thought Wikipedia strives to be. Eseymour (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man, the old Orwell comparison again? Come on. Here's a great difference between Wikipedia and Oceania: you're free to leave Wikipedia anytime you like. You can be as indignant as you want, but your sixth edit since February (none of which had anything to do with the subject) was to ask for this conspiracy theory page back. That's a fact.

What I'm telling you is to move on and let it go. If new problems arise, deal with them. If you cause the problems, don't expect sympathy because you seem to be looking for them. In the end, the more you press this, the more it looks like a grudge and the less seriously you'll be taken if and when you ever have a valid complaint. I don't make the rules - I'm just telling you how it is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave you alone after this, but just for the record, why did you only count my edits since February, when the deletion in question occurred in December? After the deletion, I logged on 10 times and edited 9 different articles before I noticed the page had been deleted. You were way off base in with your comment about the first thing I did when returning to WP was to "check [my] grudge list." I have not ever been the cause of any problems on Wikipedia, and I wish you would have treated me with a little respect, instead of like some kind of troublemaker. Have a nice day. Eseymour (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't count December because I don't care when the deletion happened - I'm not the one who deleted it. I care about the fact that you've barely been active since February and that one of your first edits after a long break was to try to get your grudge list back. And it was one of your first edits. Your sixth, to be exact. So I'm not "way off base". You want credit for logging in ten times in six months? Seriously? I've seen more productivity from anonymous IP addresses. I'm not saying everyone needs to have a thousand edits a month to be respectable, but I am saying that for the tiny, tiny, tiny amount of activity you have here, you don't need to be wasting time worrying about what other users are doing (or, more to the point, what they did six months ago). Just move on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Message notification

A message response has been made on my talk page a few days on the article page regarding "Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive." (Note: This is not "someone-someone's" archive, but instead, an organization). Click here to comment. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

July 10 DYK

On 10 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pigtail Ordinance, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nucular

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nucular. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sloan Bella

Maybe you can help me I re added this article because I believe this person fits the critera, the refrrances are provided. Risker re deleted, the article I posted, I re edited it, its facts and referrances, why don't you check. As for the deletion I was not part of that. What is the process to get it back up and why is it being deleted. And who decides that because It appears their is opposition to the deletion. What exactly do I need to do to have this put back up. There are plenty of other people in this profession on Wikipedia, this new version of the dit appears to met the guidelines I am going to put it up again and you can see the referrances. I don't believe you should have the power to continue deleting it especially since it appears to be meeting the standards. Could you or someone, Please explain what gives you the authority to delete even though the article hasd been redone and why the focus is on this article and not the other Psychics on Wikipedia, Risker says she will continue to delete, that is hardly fair considerng I re edited the article. HELP.(Flygirl14 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi Kafziel, I have provided specific information to Flygirl14 on her talk page about how to request a deletion review. Before redeleting, I did review the new article and did not see any new information or any new references that had not been present in the previous article, but please feel free to review my interpretation. Risker (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker is not correct, their are new links in that article I put them there,so as to co9mply with Wikipedia, so please check again how do I access my old article...? (Flygirl14 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

It does look like Risker explained to you (on your talk page) how to request a review. However, I wouldn't recommend it - it will most likely turn out to be a waste of your time because:

• You have a clear conflict of interest. The community is very strongly against people creating and editing their own biographies. If you're truly notable enough for an article, someday someone else will write one.
• The "references" you put in the article do not meet our standards. Also, most of them are just a list of websites; they don't say which source goes with which statement.
• Our current policy on biographies of living persons gives administrators the right to use any means necessary to ensure that unsourced information is removed. This is for your protection against libel.

The article went through the Articles for Deletion process. Any re-posts of the article as it was will be subject to speedy deletion without further discussion. Risker's decision appears to be correct, and the community is not likely to override it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sloan Bella article should be reviewed and un deleted: UN DELETE and here is why. PLEASE READ [Tirade removed] (Flygirl14 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)) [External links removed]

Just letting you know, this is currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 11#Sloan Bella. Hasn't gotten many comments, just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agh, there's only so far AGF can go in trying to work with some people. Sorry you to deal with that one. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a heck of a week. Thanks for the note, though - it's appreciated. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nucular

I just want to say, your closure of that AfD and subsequent comportment in the DRV have been a model for everyone. That was a really hard close and it will probably be a commensurately hard DRV. Thanks for keeping everything grounded. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That DRV turned out to be an even bigger headache than I anticipated but, if nothing else, at least it's been interesting! :D Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Taverncast

Hi Kafziel,

Firstly, I appreciate you taking the time to review my article suggestion on the Taverncast podcast.

I wanted to make sure I understood why such a well-known show is being disregarded, and receiving continued complaints that Taverncast has no representation with "reliable sources".

As a point of reference I did a Google search for both "tWiT" and "This Week in Tech", and am not seeing the difference in what they have as sources other than they have more total returns. tWiT's sources are blogrolls, blogs, feeders and mentions on related culture, tech and gaming sites. Taverncast is represented in links (like the above list) on blogrolls, blogs, feeders and mentions on related culture and gaming sites. Jason Hayes has links to his website, and three profile listings on musician or gaming communities. Both tWiT and Jason Hayes have a very limited amount of references posted (and I agree that tWiT's mention in Time is important), still they are both deemed appropriate in Wikipedia.

Again, I'm looking to understand why Taverncast does not match this kind of sourcing? The links in question are being contested because of the format they are written in, instead of where they are coming from. A great many sites use CM tools like WordPress or Joomla to update sites these days, and often in the form of an ongoing blog per section. Furthermore, to not give more credit to blogs in this day and age seems completely out of step with their recognition by the "mainstream" media and importance in disseminating information - especially when that information is about something not well reported on by the larger mainstream. Wikipedia itself plays a role in serving the new media, and I'm troubled to find that blogs, regardless of who they are written by or associated with, are considered not relevant.

Finally - According to Wikipedia's defintion, "reliable sources (books written by experts, government documents, peer-reviewed university research, world-class newspapers and magazines) must be added to the article. Articles without proper citation/sources must be deleted from wikipedia as the content cannot be verifiable and more than that, might not be encyclopedic". Given this definition, an entry for someone like Jason Hayes should not be allowed - yet, he is a well known figure in certain subcultures (the same subcultures as Taverncast actually), and is well deserving of an encyclopedic mention. There are many entries like this on Wikipedia. Taverncast should be included.

I'll let this go if you can just explain the reasoning behind your position - as right now it seems that a very popular and relevant show is going to be excluded on the basis of not being in Time or Newsweek, when other Wikipedia entries are much leaner and still get listed. I truly understand the need to not litter up Wikipedia with static, but Taverncast does not even come close to static.

By the way, I understand you had a hell of a week last week - and I'm not trying to add to that hell. So, again, I appreciate your communication. Thanks!

Albert

Albertlentz (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to make any sort of reply. I've been very busy lately and I still don't really have time to go too in-depth. So I'll be brief here, but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.

Some of your comparisons may be on target. Reliable sources are a problem for lots and lots of articles. But the thing is, we don't keep one article just because there are others that are just as bad. Each one has to stand on its own. If there are other bad articles, that's fine - we'll delete them, too, in due time.

I've re-listed the deletion discussion so that (I hope) it can generate more discussion from other editors who have more time to stick with it. Again, my apologies that I've been so out of it on this one. I'm usually much more on the ball. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 86.153.197.197 you just blocked

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

Now has an account - Niraqzback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Any chance of blocking for the two weeks that the IP is blocked for please? Thanks. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cloud Gate

Thanks for the block. Now, we are being attacked from another IP. Stay tuned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems a WP:3RR warning coupled with his buddy's block scared him off for a while.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem editor

Wanna be friends? I've got a problem that maybe you can help with. It concerns a relatively new editor: Footballfan190. I believe his edits are basically in good faith, but more often than not they're of really poor quality and often just as bad as vandalism. I've had to revert many of his edits to the snake articles, but now I see that he's been busy all over the place. Talking to him does not seem to help. I hate to say it, but if he goes on like this, I think we'll have no choice but to block him. --Jwinius (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'd noticed that. I reverted one of his edits a little while ago on the George Bush article. I agree that his edits probably are in good faith, but I'll try to keep an eye on it. His last remark on your talk page certainly didn't win him any points. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page so promptly. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.79.99.129

Please semi protect for duration of block. User has resumed mass posting of images on talk page, seeing as he can't do it on other's pages. Enigma ^message 06:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Productive discussion?

Hi Kafziel. You declined to block 70.1.65.164 on the grounds that he was engaged in "productive discussion". Perhaps you missed some edits, such as this one --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It really did look like the latest discussion was productive. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi Kafziel

I wonder if I could ask for your assistance on some of the editing 'Wars I have found myself engaged in on theAlcoholics Anonymous and History of Alcoholics Anonymous and Stanton Peele websites.

It has taken much time and effort to improve my editing skills, however, I find I am constantly under attack from one editor in particular. I outlined my case on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous and was cited by Kipoc.

I agree in the past some of my editing was very poor and made in ingnorance of how the Wiki works. You came to my attention when the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous wiki page was put up for deletion. Your appear reasonable.

You appear wiki knowledgeable and reasonable.

I am tired of being slammed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous --Fred Woofy (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very clear about the issue (and I'm not sure what my contribution was to the "Effectiveness of AA" article was) but give me some time to familiarize myself and I'll see if I have anything constructive to add. In the meantime, you may want to request comments from the community in general. You may find someone more knowledgeable than myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I burst out laughing

Where did you get that hilarious block template? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, glad you like it. I created it as a spoof of another admin's overly-friendly block message, but I think at this point my parody is getting to be better-known than her real one ever was. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. If due to some clerical error i become an admin in a few years, i'll ask for teh temp :) Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Is this user permanently banned?. If so thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. Judging from his latest nonsense, I don't think anyone else will disagree.

Happy to help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True. I was kinda getting annoyed which the page he created and his vandal work at PETA article and my talk page. pfft.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

You don't fancy opening this do you? British Isles Terminology task force (you can use this to start it). It just needs to get under way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The objective seems a little unclear. Is there a single, central, agreed-upon source to be used as an authority on usage of the term? Something to guide the actions of the task force? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the problems. We have British Isles of course (which exaggerates the 'dispute' element - but only IMO, of course), and an awkward British Isles naming dispute fork. In the UK, it's commonly used as a geographical term for the archipelagos, but as Ireland is no longer in Britain (it was in throughout 18c) some people on WP specifically object to its use. It can be argued the term is ancient... etc. Article's like the River Shannon are locked over dispute on when/how to use it. An admin DDStretch has backed the task force, but I put in the initial proposal that we need a neutral to start it - unfortunately no one at WP:GEOG has stood up. The guy commenting on the request is being disruptive, btw - if you look at the poll it has support from all sides of the usage debate, and we accept it must be an opened as an 'open book': we need a central place to fight, as lots of articles including the term have been disrupted lately. Someone started going around removing it from articles, them someone else (the guy who commented in the request) has started actively inserting it in articles. Most of us realise now we need to talk centrally.

I know you are in the US (partly why I came to you) - so worry if you don;t have time - someone will sort it soon. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Usage shouldn't be determined by debate on some Wikipedia talk page; it should be clearly dictated to us by other reliable sources (in this case, something like Hart's Rules or Butcher's Copy-editing). I think setting up a "central place to fight" goes against the policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground, but deciding on an authoritative source to be used as a backbone of the task force should help minimize disputes. I'd say getting consensus on such a source should be the first step to forming an action plan. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'task force' (essentially a wp:geography subpage) is where we need to agree on stuff like that. Any dictionary would give 'Britain and Ireland' as a definition, and I expect a style guide would reflect and follow that. The politicised don't like it though, and underneath their refusal to accept 'WP:commonnames' here, they do have their point about Ireland not being British. And if a dictionary can be ignored, a style guide can too. Certainly WP should not be a battleground, but - in this case at least - it simply is. So many articles are getting adversely affected by this now, that we all agree now we can't keep dominating their Talk pages and get the articles locked through the edit wars. I'm not a big offender here myself, but others are prepared go to 3RR, even after experiencing blocks. Feelings on this run high. The task force is where we plan to iron out, in a single dedicated place, the issues that keep coming up. I only say 'fight' because so many who are interested in this 'BI issue' are uncompromising, and the task force will keep the fighting that can occur, out of places where it does damage (locked articles, dominated talks, putting others off editing etc). It's the only way a wider solution can be somehow found, as it's not really come close on the various Talks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong vandal attacks

Thanks for your help here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC).

• I'm not sure if you noticed, but this article is today's featured article and should not have been protected per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. The day's almost over, however, so the issue is pretty much moot now. VegaDark (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. That's certainly not unheard-of, and is provided for in the guideline. I also happen to be of the opinion that featured articles of the day should always be semi-protected—a slightly more in-depth explanation is here—so I'm willing to be the one to do it when the need arises. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 218.213.226.210

Hi Kafziel. Regarding the 3RR report posted by the IP, I was wondering whether the block should be lengthened as it's essentially a block-evading IP as noted here. In any case, thanks for your intervention; if more IPs pop up I'll probably just request semi-protection on the affected pages. Regards, ITAQALLAH 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

your a knob

why did you ban skellon 123 you lazy nerd asshole, go nit your gran a sweater.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.178.124 (talk • contribs)

I believe you mean "you're" and "knit". Good advice anyway. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning Corlen

Cheers for that. I reverting his edits while trying to find out how to get someone banned for vandalism. It was nice to be pre-empted. Srushe (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Corlen is alive and well, thank you very much. To be honest, this was an experiment to see how the administrators of Wikipedia would react if I created a page which they cannot alter, defaming them with ridiculous and immature bullshit I wrote while bored, and then replacing every single link I came across on Wikipedia with a link to said page. I do these kinds of things to test sociological crap in human beings because social engineering and manipulation are a favorite hobby of mine. Seems as though it failed however because I highly doubt any of you even bothered to check the external link I was spamming. I was at least hoping for a personal response via E-Mail, however... Oh well, this affair is over with. I could care less whether you take this as an apology, excuse or straight out lies since nothing I write will change your mind(s). Then again I guess you guys truly believe in freedom of speech since you didn't complain at all if you did read it. Keep up the good work anyway, I have no quarrels with you. Cheers. 71.217.136.126 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Alcoholics Anonymous

Miles is another editing war, does not discuss before deleting other editors contributions. --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth

Regarding your edit to the talk page at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, part of that discussion should be kept, namely, the original question and the response (someone else can respond if it is felt that I have a conflict of interest) explaining why that should not be included. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I tried to close it off before but I wasn't going to edit war over it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting talk page

Please, unprotect Talk:2008 South Ossetia War as soon as you can, but anyway thanks for archiving ;-) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already unprotected. I just needed 5 minutes without the constant edit conflicts so I could go through and archive the old stuff. It'll happen from time to time, but never for more than a few minutes. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cassiel / Kafziel

How do you know for sure that Cassiel is NOT a female archangel ? I have quite a bit of experience in channeling techniques with the Seraphim and it has been shown to me clearly that are FOUR female archangels, including Gabriel, Camael, Cassiel, and Haniel. I have an angelologist friend named Mr. Yarbrough (Halaliel), whom you may know, and which may be of some help to us. ADM (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'm agnostic so I don't believe that Cassiel is anything "for sure". However, your claim was that "tradition holds" that Cassiel is female, which is patently false. Cassiel is traditionally depicted as having a very long, Persian-style beard and is traditionally called one of the seven princes of Heaven. Wikipedia articles have to be based solely on published reliable sources. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article about war reporting

Hallo. I'm a journalist writing for Austrian Newspaper "Falter". I'm working on a story about war reporting on Wikipedia (focused on South Ossetia War). I would like to ask you a few questions via email about this subject (concerning neutrality and propaganda on Wikipedia). I would be really pleased, if you agreed to answer my questions. If you are interested just send me a message via my Wikipedia profile. Best regards, Wueddens (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your deletion at discussion pages

Discussion pages are for discussions. I prefer to discuss changes to articles before I edit them to gain consensus.--Molobo (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For all that talk, you haven't made a single edit to the article itself. Enough is enough. Discussion pages are for discussions related to the article, not simply to the subject. If you want to talk about the subject, do it in your user space. If you want to improve the article, be bold. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I didn't edit the article. It's a constant edit war, that's why I prefer discussion first and consensus.--Molobo (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. It's a wiki. It's constantly changing, but that's how articles improve. An edit war means it's going back and forth, and that is not the case. The article was locked for just that reason. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your refusal to allow discussing article changes

Why are you deleting attempts to discuss article changes ? It is the most prefered way to create an article. Really stop, how else editors are to work on article. --Molobo (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not the preferred way to edit an article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Kafziel, I notice that you are taking a rather draconian attitude on the South Ossetian war talk page. Talk pages are made for discussing important changes to the article or in fact any aspect of the article that a reasonable editor feels the need to discuss. I realize that that specific page has been abused over the last few days by disputes not directly related to the article and other irrelevant comments, and these of course should be deleted. However deleting legitimate comments simply because you personally believe them to be superfluous or not necessarily important is rather drastic and not completely in line with policy. Thanks, TSO1D (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's completely in line with WP:BOLD. Editors should not discuss every conceivable change - they should make the change. Your comment was definitely superfluous and, in fact, serves only to start new arguments (as has now happened). You had already made the change anyway, so what was the point? If someone cares, they'll take it out. If they don't care, no need for comment. The only people that should be leaving remarks on that talk page are new or anonymous users who can't edit the article itself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, talk pages are absolutely not just for new or anonymous users who do not know how to edit in mainspace. And the idea that one should only make a comment after a revert is diametrically opposite to Wikipedia policy. The very idea of talk pages is so that contrasting viewpoints can be discussed there precisely so there will not be unnecessary reverts. I posted the comment about the end of the war, because this is one of the most important parts of the article in the infobox, and I was certain that not everyone would agree. The fact that an argument was started was precisely the point, so that we can *discuss on the talk page what to list as the end date of the war and what to list as the result. I suggest you take a look at WP:talk and Help:Reverting if you want to review the policy. TSO1D (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say this applied to all talk pages. I said it applies to that talk page, because the article is semi-protected so new and anon users can't edit. As an admin, you should certainly know that talk pages are absolutely not for intentionally starting arguments. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of prior consensus, all actions start by editing the article. See how far down the list "take it to the talk page" is?

Please do not delete discussion threads from Talk:2008 South Ossetia war, and please adjust the archiving parameters such that comments are not archived the next day. There are too many archives for an article as young as this, and it makes it difficult to find discussions. A talk page is not just for new users who are unable to edit a semi-protected page. Consensus formation and the discussion of references are important functions of a discussion page even for experienced editors. You may find a thread unnecessary, but you do not "own " the article or its discussion page, and others who create or comment on a thread clearly disagree with you. Thanks. Edison (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the guidelines, comments that are not relevant are subject to removal at any time. It doesn't necessitate a separate discussion, just one person's judgment. And there's no such thing as "too many archives". Pages are archived when they get too large to load properly (which happens quite quickly in this case, because many of the participants are from less developed areas and don't have quality high-speed Internet). The reason there are so many archives is that there have been so many needless comments. Which is why I've started deleting some of the unnecessary ones, per WP:TALK. It's a hell of a lot of work to archive all that stuff; I'm not doing it for fun. It simply isn't fair to users with shoddy dial-up ISPs to have to wait for a 500kb talk page to load. I can either delete them or archive them. I'm not going to leave them on the page and not archive them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you do not WP:OWN the talk page, any editor who disagrees with your deletion of a thread is free to restore it. If you would label the archives with dates it would aid in finding archived talk page text. Thanks. Edison (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He restored it and I did let him do it. See how they're still there? I really don't see where this concerns you, as I haven't touched that page since before the first editor started this discussion several hours ago. But if I do see unnecessary threads, I will continue to archive and/or refactor them as necessary.

And, actually, I did label the archives with dates.[33] Someone decided they didn't like having a separate archive box and they removed it. Since I don't own the talk page, it's not my job to replace it. Feel free. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Excuse me, but how exactly does this talk page section advocate original research? And all of the section? In particular, why do you think that my initial comment in this section is "not relevant to article improvement"? GregorB (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's asking for public opinion rather than published sources. If it's published (particularly in the case of Russian media) it's official. If it's not published, it's original research. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your argument itself is original research. (Anyway, what if Russian dissidents' view is published in Western media?) And what about my initial comment? GregorB (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Your argument itself is original research." I don't even know what that means.

I also don't see how your initial comment is any different than what I've already said. You're saying you'd like to see public opinion. That's nice. Either it's original research, or you have some reliable sources - in which case, add it. What's to discuss? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that something published in Russian media is automatically government view? You can't: it's your personal opinion, not fact. It is also easily refuted.

Pointing to (perceived or real) shortcomings of the article in the talk page is not only perfectly legitimate, it is an everyday practice at Wikipedia. There's no requirement for me (or anyone else) to fix the flaws myself before - or instead of - criticizing. As an administrator, you certainly know that, and that's why I find your comments and actions particularly puzzling. GregorB (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no personal opinion about the Russian media. At the time of your initial posting all you did was say what you wanted to see and what ru.wikipedia had; there was no mention of the validity of the Russian media, and I'm not going to get dragged into that argument this far after the fact. But I'm not biased; I don't edit anything having to do with any of this stuff. I have made no significant edits to the article in question or to the talk page, aside from spending hours and hours of my own free time trying to help by refactoring and archiving (when requested to do so by other editors).

It's true, you're not required to do anything to improve the articles. But if all you want to do is criticize and complain, I guess all I can give you is a nice big {{sofixit}}. And if you really feel your thread was productive, you can always put it back. Ain't Wikipedia swell? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think there was a misunderstanding here. I'm interested in Russian public opinion regarding this issue and I think it would make the article more complete; of course, that's me - other editors may disagree, that's what talk page is for. I thought ru.wikipedia article could be interesting as an example, plus its sources could be used. I could either do it myself, or I could encourage the others. And I don't really have an opinion on Russian media either. Fortunately, as an editor, I don't need to have - only thing that matters here is verifiability. That's all.

I'm going to restore the section. Granted, not all comments there are really productive. I'll try to add a couple of links to sources later; if someone uses them, fine, and if not - no harm done, I guess... GregorB (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)