User talk:Kuzaar/01

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Season's Greetings Kuzaar/01, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock on, Alf. Kuzaar 19:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aldergrove

Thanks for the note re Aldergrove. Better to leave off the census reference as the village is too small to be mentioned specifically in the 2001 Census Ardfern 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas Society AFD

I've replied on my Talk page. If I introduced an error whilst trying to clean up please reply to me on my Talk page and I'll explain and/or fix it. Cheers. --kingboyk 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Whoops, I messed up and have now fixed it I hope. (Red faced). --kingboyk 13:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Marion Russell

Every Wikipedia biographical entry lists a persons birth year and death year in parenthesis in the beginning line. Why did you revert my change back to your more informal way? You also changed back to the line “In 1896 at the age of 18…” Well if he was born in 1864, in 1896 would he not be 32 years old? Also, the header “Later Years” would not be applicable when the opening sentence mentions him at 32 years of age because Russell lived to be 62. Not trying to be critical (if you wrote it), just helpful, but this article needs more complete information, accuracy and grammatical work. If you did not write it, I am not sure why you are changing the improvements. --LibraryLion 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I apologize for suggesting you made the reverts intentionally. It looks like you specialize in doing many reverts done by vandalism, and I can see how one could make a mistake when having to fix the many pages vandals change. Keep up the good work. --LibraryLion 19:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your attention to The Plazoid article. --Metatree 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

131.173.252.9

Hi Kuzaar,

Good work keeping an eye on Special:Contributions/131.173.252.9. I'm sorry if that editor is giving you a headache. Unfortunately I don't know enough to evaluate the accuracy of some of his edits, but clearly some of his edits, such as deleting the section on militarism at German Empire border on vandalism and you were right to revert them. I've been in a number of situations where an editor has had a mix of good edits and bad edits and I generally think its better to revert with extreme prejudice. Usually the editor will come back and play by the rules. GabrielF 16:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

209.26.182.3 Spam additions

Thank you for your diligent work reverting the spam additions by Special:Contributions/209.26.182.3. Monkeyman^(talk) 14:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrueGamerOmega

I would like to know what you speak of with the Speedy Deletion tags. I have not removed any speedy deletion tag. Please specify. TrueGamerOmega 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Hoarding Barnstar
		Thank you for cleaning up after the de-prodding guy! Appropriate Username 05:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haug

Good point re the sandwich, we don't want to get sued. How about 'Kickin' Back with the Haug-meister'? Catchy, unusual, and with very few copyright issues. This baby's as good as greenlighted!!!!! Badgerpatrol 14:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding by Kappa

I was going to let this pass until I checked AfD again today. Yesterday, Kappa's deprodding was mentioned by name in 9 AfDs, and so far today he is mentioned by name in 11 more. This last was particularly troubling to me. but Kappa's constant removal of prod tags without explanation or addressing any of the underlying problems has got to stop. In this particular case the prodder tagged an album by a notable group; Kappa's edit summary, de-prod album by sniper is sufficient in context, and I have observed a number of AfD in which articles about albums by notable groups survive deletion. Without regard to the merits of the individual cases, mentioning him by name verges on a personal attack, because the implication is that he is behaving badly or wrongly by removing prod tags. Sometimes you and Eusebus come out and say it, other times you imply it. It is also not relevant to the discussion as it is a reverse form of the logical fallacy Appeal to authority (Kappa wants to keep it, therefore it deserves deletion). It would be far better to leave specific names out of it. (The RFAr on Monicasdude revolves in part around similar behavior where editors start saying things like, "deprodded by Moniciasdude but I just don't trust his judgement." Now, Monicasdude should not take the bait and respond even more uncivilly (as he has) but it would be better not to bait him in the first place.) I don't see how it can be a good thing to start down the same road with another user.

Regarding whether or not Kappa should be improving articles instead of just simply removing prod tags, that's a matter of personal choice and is specifically stated as optional in the policy. You might prefer he take more time to work on an article; I on the other hand wish that deleters would take some time trying to improve articles, or at least contact the author out of courtesy, before trying to delete them. Other than hoaxes or obvious vandalism, bad articles are rarely so damaging to wikipedia that giving it a week's grace for cleanup would harm the encyclopedia. There is always going to be tension between keepers and deleters, but as long as we are going to have a prod process there has to be a "no questions asked" deprod allowed to provide balance. Thatcher131 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It bothers me that he is able to make hours of workload for the other editors of Wikipedia with a few minutes' work.

That's a fair point and a good reason to ask that the deprodder put at least some thought into it. On the other hand, proposed deletion didn't exist before February of this year, so there's still less overall work at AfD than there used to be. In the case of article stubs related to other topics, you can tag the article for merge and wait a bit to see if anyone objects, or just go ahead and boldly merge and redirect the articles yourself. (If the articles are of as little value as you think, no one is likely to object to a merge.) If you disagree with Kappa's behavior I would start by engaging on his talk page, then take it to Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. If there is a lot of support for your position and he won't cooperate, you can ultimately try a RfC. Naming him specifically in AfDs (especially describing his action as wrong or inappropriate) is unlikely to result in a good outcome, for the reasons I suggest above. Thatcher131 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and prod

I noticed in this edit [1] you recommenend merging information into a different article but leaving a prod tag in place. This would result in a violation of the GFDL unless the deprodder also completely rewrote the information, which would be an incredible waste of time. Kappa 10:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism

Thanks for the comment. I do see the noble purpose of AfD and of pruning the encyclopaedia- but I think the key difference (having had a brief glance at your edits) between yourself and e.g. Brian Crawford is that you nominate on the basis that the article doesn't meet policy and is unfit for the encyclopaedia as defined by the community at large. He often (although not always) nominates on the basis that he simply doesn't like an article (WP:POINT), and that, in his opinion, it shouldn't be in here. Quite often he seems to nominate with no expectation of actually getting the article deleted, which is just a waste of everyone's time. You may be correct that the intent is to encourage others to work on and improve the material, although I don't get a strong sense of this myself. Anyway, I'm certainly not having any sort of dig at BGC, I was just genuinely interested to hear what his take on the deletion process (and the encyclopaedia in general) was. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your violation of WP:NPA on my talk page

Kuzaar, you need to review the personal attacks policy. It is quite clear that comments like the ones I made are appropriate.

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X.

The policy also states that It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks.

The policy here makes quite clear that false allegations of personal attacks are just as much a violation as personal attacks themselves would be, and your statements on my talk page clearly violate the policy. I assume good faith that you are insufficiently familiar with the actual policy, but don't post such comments there again. Monicasdude 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate WP:NPA on your talk page. My assertions were based in fact; namely, your accusations toward Eusebeus of bad faith nominations when he himself 1. did not vote, and 2. Clearly listed a reason for listing the article to AFD. This, along with the fact that you felt it necessary to attack Eusebeus' nomination itself instead of the reasons for the nomination, is the reason I reminded you of the NPA policy. Accusing the nominator of bad faith nomination simply because they are who they are is, as I said before, tantamount to a personal attack. I went through this same discussion not two days ago with Thatcher131, and we came to an agreement on the subject regarding the PROD contestor Kappa; this situation is virtually the same. Kuzaar 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Additionally, see below for evidence of Eusebeus' good faith. Kuzaar 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your opinion is inconsistent with the governing Wikipedia policy. And, since Eusebeus frequently mentions the deprodder's name in his Afd nominations as though it were evidence for deletion, he is, by your reasoning, equally violating the personal attacks policy, but that doesn't seem to bother you. And mechanically repeating the rationale for the prod nomination, without responding to the deprodder's claims, isn't "reasoning," and perfectly fits the description "without regard to the merits of the dispute." Monicasdude 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, his mentioning the contestor's name in his AFD nominations is just as bad form as mine was in voting to delete and mentioning Kappa's name. It was incorrect to do and I have apologized to him about it. I'm going to talk to Eusebeus about it on his talk page and see if I can't keep everyone's head cool about this. On the other hand, if the reasons for the AFD are the same as those for the PROD, it's up to the voters to decide whether or not they should vote to keep or lose it. All that Eusebeus is doing by listing them on AFD is calling for the community to come to agreement about the article; which is really just an extension of what contesting the proposed deletion is about. By any means, I'm just interested in all involved parties keeping their cool and making Wikipedia a better resource. Thank you, Kuzaar 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the harassment policy before posting nonsense like your criticism of my comments on Eusebeus' talk page. Eusebeus says, quite openly, that his main criterion for nominating articles for deletion is the identity of the person who objects to a prod nomination, and that he does not consider the reasons for the objection, but looks only at the form of the prod rationale. Thus, he proposes deletion of any article prodded with the nn-bio tag, no matter how obviously wrong that tag is. That's both harassing and vandalous. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this misbehavior. Monicasdude 15:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monicadude posted the same wild rant on my page and I replied there, so if you're not too cowed by all that shame, you can see it there. Eusebeus 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Yes I noticed that. My bringing contested prods to AfD is hardly an act of bad faith - in fact I think it is a responsible followup action of contesting a prod in the first place. That said, monicasdude is perfectly entitled to his opinion and if consensus is to keep the articles that have been subjected to a disputed prod, for whatever reason (e.g. my bringing them forward), they will be more often than not better for it. You will note that I have not voted in any of them myself (since "nominating" is not voting, but rather calling for expression of views) so I have less personal stake than maybe he feels I do. But have no fear, I am not going to be drawn into a nasty war of words. Cheers mate! Eusebeus 14:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why you're systematically nominating all the articles I deprodded yesterday, even when there's absolutely no good faith basis for contesting the issue. A textbook display of bad faith. Monicasdude`

I have to disagree with this. It's not bad faith to demand consensus on an article when two involved parties feel that the article alternately should or should not be included in the encyclopedia; that's what AFD is there for. Kuzaar 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the course of April 23 and 24, Eusebus nominated for AfD 40 articles that Kappa deprodded. On April 25, Eusebus AfD'd 13 articles that Monicasdude deprodded. Blaming Monicasdude for systematically voting keep is a case of Pot/Kettle. There is certainly an argument to be made that Eusebus is as guilty of thoughtless nominations as Kappa and Monicasdude are guilty of thoughtless deprodding. I suggest you both lay off the deletions for a few days. No harm will come to wikipedia if a non-notable article hangs around for a few days until somebody else gets around to nominating it. Thatcher131 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my favor, I have to speak out: I've only nominated two articles to AFD in the past week. Kuzaar 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily mind all the pop culture cruft but there seems to be a lack of balance. Someone wrote on another AfD for an academic (not Monicasdude, but I don't remember who it was) that WP seems to have a streak of anti-intellectualism. I don't agree necessarily but I do think most scientists aren't especially interested in being listed here, which contributes to the outcome (very few intellectuals). Thatcher131 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== This is your final warning ==

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Editing another user's talk page in the manner you did is not allowed. Monicasdude 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out the policy in which restoring an editor's deletion of another user's comment on their talk page which was devoid of personal attacks, only as wrong in tone as you have been to Eusebeus himself, I will admit that I was wrong to re-insert his case against you. Until then, what you have done (editing another user's comments without justification on the ground of personal attacks (and deleting my own entirely), is against Wikipedia policy. Kuzaar 14:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, an editor is completely free to delete any comments on their page at discretion, other than warnings. What you've done isn't necesarily what I would consider vandalism at first look, though if you continued to revert content that Monicasdude has removed from his (?) user page, that would be vandalism. Monicasdude seems to be citing Wikipedia:Vandalism Talk page vandalism Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, though the comments removed are more a violation of WP:CIVIL than a violation of WP:NPA. Last time I checked it was perfectly OK to fault someone's logic.

I like how we jumped right to DefCon 4 (Template:Test4 (Fourth level warning)) with no lead up in warnings. Very friendly.--Isotope23 14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Monicasdude would do well to not unilaterally apply the guidelines at WP:CIVIL to his own actions instead of being so eager to apply them to other users. Kuzaar 14:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message about Monicasdude

If I could have helped with Monicasdude, I would have done it already, and we wouldn't have the RFAr. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for advice? Stay out of it. First, editors are generally free to edit their own talk pages, although removing vandalism warnings and such is a problem. Removing the comments of another editor you just don't like is a bit uncivil but you really shouldn't be messing around with Monicasdude's edits to his own pages. Second, Monicasdude's conduct is the subject of an ongoing arbitration, a formal process of last resort for dealing with problem editors (see WP:RFAR). It is unlikely you will be able to accomplish anything on your own. Third, I am conflicted about Eusebus; I first thought he was targeting Monicasdude, then I thought he was just using MD's contribs to find articles since the toolserver is down; but based on his current behavior I'm swinging back the other way. Further, I believe his actions (sending deprodded articles to AfD "for comment" based only on the prodder's reasoning) is misguided at best. I advised him to stay away from Monicasdude's prods for a few days to let the situation calm down, he clearly has no interest in doing that, and the comment which Monicasdude removed [2], is not only a borderline personal attack but is remarkably confrontational. Clearly Eusebeus has no intention of backing away from Monicasdude, and I direct you to the example of The Sneetches and Other Stories#"The Zax"; no matter how stubborn MD is, it takes two to tango. With respect for your patience and obvious desire to mediate a peaceful settlement, I strongly suggest its time to pull back. Eusebeus' deletionism is apparently in style right now, and Monicasdude is under arbitration anyway. Thatcher131 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. If there's any way in which I can help with the RFAr by providing evidence or anything else that might be constructive, just let me know. I've been editing here for maybe three or four months and haven't had any experience at all with the arbitration or mediation systems. Thank you, Kuzaar 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. There are two main ways to contribute. The first is to edit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence and add in a section entitled "Evidence presented by Kuzaar", then add in diffs illustrating behaviour that you find unacceptable, in the same style as other users have. To get a diff, either click the "diff" link opposite the page edit in question on Special:Contributions/Monicasdude or in the history of a page, click the radio buttons before and after the edit in question. Then copy and paste the URL from the address bar of your browser.

Alternatively, and more simply, you can post a comment, as short or long as you wish, to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. However, evidence is more useful than comments.

Thanks for your help with the situation. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I want to second what Stifle & Thatcher said... you are a better person than I if you want to get involved in trying to mediate the Monicasdude/Eusebeus situation. There wouldn't be an RFAr if this situation could be dealt with in a civil manner by having calm, meaningful discussions. My best advice would be to leave the situation alone. If you feel you must get involved, be WP:COOL, don't get pulled into edit wars, and hopefully you have a very thick skin...--Isotope23 14:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a random comment (and this is 100% a statement of opinion, not a personal attack on anyone)... I don't necessarily see anything wrong with bringing a deprod to AfD for something akin to a peer review provided the prod was based on valid guidelines or reasoning, but in this situation the methods and circumstances were not what I would consider to be ideal (and I'm being kind). The worst thing is that some of these articles went through 3 people looking at them (prod, deprod, & afd) and at any point in that process someone could have researched it, added necessary citation/sourcing if it existed, tagged it if nothing was found, and taken 5 friggin' minutes to update the talk page to explain their edits. Instead everyone involved decided to turn this into a pissing contest about who can more effectively hijack the process to get their way. It's sad.--Isotope23 14:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments with regard to this ongoing "dispute." My advice, fwiw, is to leave it all alone, definitely don't go anywhere near his user page, and don't worry about the double standards being bandied about with respect to WP:CIVIL. I appreciate your efforts to act as go-between, but I don't need it. MD's tantrum doesn't scare me and if he wants he can always put up a request for comment against me - I have even prodded him to do so, since he is apparently obsessed with the fact that I am stalking him (notwithstanding that I brought up only a very small fraction of his deprods for review and that they hardly form the bulk of those I have brought forward). Accusations that I have blindly taken the prod(repeated above) and ignored the reasons for contesting are completely groundless, to which even the merest cursory review of almost all my nominations will attest. Accusations that I am proceeding on some kind of agenda (other than wanting to bring debate-worthy contested prods to AfD) are completely off-base. Frankly, the only person here with legitimate grounds for complaint is Kappa, who came in for unacceptable abuse by my hand, albeit inadvertently.

Bottom line - numbers speak for themselves: of the articles I have brought to AfD, as it stands now, some 60% are on their way to deletion, 15% are keeps, and the remainder are redirects, merges, or no consensus. Considering that all of these were deprodded (i.e. not dismissed as nonsense, but reviewed and kept based on their merits), that is a telling result in terms of both why the procedure needs to work better and why violent and rude reaction against bringing disputed prods is not only uncalled for, but further incomprehensible veering toward the absurd. Here is what is frustrating: bringing contested prods to AfD (no matter the deprodder) based on reasonable review should be a no-brainer, since AfD is in part about building consensus over determining inclusion standards (look at the ongoing but useful mess about academic notability). MD's campaign of warrantless and obviously bad faith discreditation has been successful insofar as a perfectly legitimate course of action that has proven beneficial to the project can be termed, as it has above by a highly reputable and competent editor, a pissing contest about who can more effectively hijack the process. That is indeed sad.

So all that said, your comments, positive and admonitory, as well as your efforts to establish common ground, have been appreciated and I thank you for the thought you have put into them. Hasta luego y guardate bien! Eusebeus 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

I appreciate your attention to my and Rabiniclawyer's talk pages. --Theloniouszen 06:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Places of Worship

Hi, thanks. Yeah I have been editing for a while now but I'm probably too polite (or not bold enough?) to begin AfDs, let alone begin and AfD crusade (for lack of a better term) especially in an area that can be touchy for some. I usually do what I did in this case: ask what the consensus is and if there is one somebody with more passion will usually carry it out. I suppose one or both of us could simply start nominating articles but the reason that I brought it up was I'm sure that there is some sort criteria because I'm sure that most places of worship do have a place in Wikipedia, even if just for the physicla building for many. I'd hope that the AfD could start a discussion that perhaps could move to the Canadian noticeboard if there is interest. --JGGardiner 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pralamba

This has reference to your copyvio tag to the above page. Actually, the page is based on the book you are referring to - we are not doing original research here - we have to build the Project based on the already existing materials. As such, there shall always be reworded contents. I trust that you shall agree and remove the copy vio tag and restore the contents. I was about to refer to the book, and I have referred to the book to several other stubs. Please understand the position. Regards. --Bhadani 15:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that I shall re-word them and give some more inputs. I shall change the style completely, and also add contents from other sources. You should understand the position. In the meanwhile, you may keep the copyvio tag as such, I shall re-write the contents in a diffirent style. Thank you. --Bhadani 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was about to give the reference of that particular book as the source. Anyway, it is ok now. I shall make a complete re-write, with other sources, if possible. --Bhadani 15:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - rather you should thank Frost. And, the punctual response is just a coincidence as we both are on-line at the same time. I am re-working on those page, and within next few days you shall fine the diffirence. Ok. --Bhadani 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Really you have done a wonderful "job". It is really wonderful. And, drawing inspiration from the legend on your User Page about useless pages, I deleted sveral ones under the speedy category. I will have to come to youyr page again and again to get several useful links. I shall do a "copyvio" and copy them to my user page. Regards. --Bhadani 15:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]