Wikipedia

User talk:Kafziel/archive7

< User talk:Kafziel
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Okeyes (WMF) in topic Article Feedback newsletter

Astro & Glyde Article

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, could you please provide me with a copy of my article, called Astro & Glyde, which was speedily deleted from wikipedia? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly! If you activate an email account (under the "my preferences" tab), I will send it to you. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have activated my email account. Thanks.Higginson21 (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Hi, can you please send the article to my email? Thanks very much.Higginson21 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You don't seem to have your email enabled yet. See in the toolbox (on the left side of the screen) where it says, "E-mail this user"? That link is there because I have email enabled. It's not there when I go to your userpage. Go into "my preferences", and under the email options section make sure the "enable email from other users" box is checked. Be sure to save your changes! Once that's done, I should be able to send you the article. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry about that mistake! I've enabled the email from other users in my preferences, so it should now work. Thanks! Higginson21 (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! I've emailed a copy to your address. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The July 2009 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) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

92.0.153.217/StetZach24

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On my talkpage: "You obviously don't know who we are. Stop deleting our section on here.....or I will personally make sure you are banned :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StetZach24 (talk)"

Can you please tell what this means, because I don't remember him and is really starting to piss me off.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs)

Looks like he has been blocked indefinitely, so I wouldn't worry about it. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

barbers pole

hi there, i was reading to your post ref. barbers pole and thought that i would just ad a fact that i read only a few days ago. The barbers pole represents the polle that was at the end of the chair arm so that when the surgen barbers were extracting teeth etc, the person having the surgery done could grip this due to pain. The barbers red (blood) and white (clean) towels is correct but they were not hung over the poles it was added to the barber sign as advertising. the blue has always been thought of as veins but it was added by the americans as a patriotic sign. Hope this helps

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lorre

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey, thanks for blocking that IP. I was dreading filling out the 3RR forms, it doesn't seem very straightforward to me. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the IP editor is evading his block by switching IP addresses. His new address is 80.98.239.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Yworo (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Biological Functionalism

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Kafziel, can you please explain to me why my article requires more references? I am not saying that I disagree; I would just like some specific guidance as to which parts of the article are unclear, so that I can ameliorate it. Thanks!Higginson21 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed one reference because it was just a bibliography of a different work. There was nothing actually there to support the statement. Also, for an article like this, published books and peer-reviewed print journals are much better than PDFs from websites and papers from universities. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the advice! Higginson21 (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The August 2009 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) 20:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re application of guidance in proposed deletion of band article for purported lack of notability

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at [1]. It concerns the proposed deletion of the article on the band The Shells, for purported lack of notability. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), and have never had contact with you before, I recognize that you had a hand in crafting/discussing the language of the guidance, so you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion applying the guidance.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Simcoe_map.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Simcoe_map.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kafziel,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.


Take the survey


Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.


CMUResearcher (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Deleted article

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to request a copy of the deleted page EphBlog. David.Kane (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've emailed it to you. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Thanks for the heads-up! Kafziel Complaint Department 00:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wappinger

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I must say, you were certainly right on it. And have a noteworthy pedigree (of hailing from Orange County, NY). Having been born in Wappinger Falls and lived two long stretches in LA I well understand the difference.

I've been gone from the Wappinger area for over half a century but periodically find myself at Wikipedia pages pertaining to its general environs, this time looking for a place to rock climb with a friend who lives in NYC. Not on the east bank of the Hudson, the west.

In any case, I'm sure you will agree that "Wappani" is not the generally accepted name for the Native American Indian tribe, and is not the dominant referent in the historical literature. Even a quick Google search of the terms "Wappinger" and "Indian" versus "Wappani" and "Indian" shows a landslide 4,490,000 hits for the former versus a mere 1,440 for the latter, including those in the second instance for cooking terms that feature the Japanese culinary term "Wappani" and a reference to "Indian" cuisine (based on the land of India).

I commend your acuity and lightning speed, but I believe the proper designator for the Tribe's Wikipedia page is Wappinger, and really do not wish to get in an edit war over it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen you've already undone the Wappinger redirects. Please let's not go down this road. You are an administrator, and are acting hastily and in the face of the burgen of historical usage. Please reconsider your path. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to discuss it (see the article's talk page) but the discussion should happen before the page gets moved from its original location. I recommend going through the process at Requested Moves to get a wider consensus. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but that is not the page's original location or name, as I understand it. It was Wappinger and wrongly became "Wappani" (in my opinion) after the fact. I was just restoring it, in concord with both contemporary common and historical usage. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wappani is the original location; I wrote the article. Anyway, no harm done - as I said on the talk page, I'm just a layman and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, so let's just see what everyone else thinks about it and go from there. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, it's always nice to see someone's actually reading the stuff I write. Even if we disagree on some of the points, it's good to know someone is paying attention! Kafziel Complaint Department 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement.

I had not realized you had written the original article. I immediately recognized your screen name as that of the editor who immediately followed up on some I'd made to an article on the last Wappinger Indian sachem, Daniel Ninham, several thousand edits ago when I first set up a Wikipedia account. An article, which by the way, refers to he and the tribe as "Wappinger", not "Wappani". You didn't change it there. ;)

Can't we just agree to allow a renaming of "Wappani" to "Wappinger" to reflect a two-plus century and current worldwide consensus for the accepted historical name for the tribe at issue, with the appropriate redirect from "Wappani" to "Wappinger" instead of vice-versa, which Wikipedia gagged on when I initially tried it? I know all about Wikipedia "consensus," but the world and the history books (and all manner of legitimate Native American history and geneaology sites, like so: http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/delaware/wappingerhist.htm ) have already developed one, "Wappinger".

You can send me all the pictures of strip malls you can upload, indefinitely. If you'll just please use some common consensus (Hey, a play on words, how do you like it?) on this. Puuullleeaase? Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested, you can request help with consensus building at WP:RM. Or, if "Wappinger" is acceptable to you, I can just move it there since, in that case, it wouldn't be a controversial move.
I never said Wappinger was a bad name (which is why I left it in the Daniel Nimham article), it's just not what they originally called themselves. I'm okay with it. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm waiting on the strip mall pix...I really miss them from Southern California. Not!
It is a pleasure meeting a resonalble person on the other end of a Wikipedia difference of opinion. My lucky day. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The September 2009 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) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint on Admin Notice Board

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This regards your blocking action regarding Dunderberg Mountain.
Thanks!

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're thanking me for, but you're welcome, I guess. Enjoy the derision. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Do I know you? You want to block me? Go ahead! FkpCascais (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel. Sorry for treating you this way. I was wrong. I don´t really know your historial of attitudes you had/have here, so I automatically assumed you were tendentious about the dipute I had with that user. I also think you were a little bit out of context regarding the dispute, where (I do aknoledge) did used some radical language to make a point. I hope you know that I don´t use to engage in any kind of disputes, since I work almost exclusevely on soccer players biographies and lists, trying to stay out of anything controversial or conflicting. Since you been to Kosovo, you know well the very oposite views Serbs and Kosovar Albanians have, so it is quite easy to get involved in a conflict. Promissing you I want use this kind of attitudes again (I´m not here to show any points to anyone) I apologise to you once again. Regards FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. I saw from your history that you do a lot of good work so I knew you were just caught up in the moment. Happy editing! Kafziel Complaint Department 08:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanx for your understanding Kafziel. FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you Kafziel, but I really need some advice from some Admin. I did get involved in such arguments with User:Kedadi first, User:Anna Comnena only supported him, because of the nature of the edits he makes. The problem is that Kedadi makes edits substituting words in a Kosovo related articles. Like the Massacres that occured there, they are already written, but he replaces "killing of Albanians" with "mass murder" and things like that. Shouldn´t those articles be more closely watched? Because, I´m sure that if Serbian point of view was edited, like "killed KLA soldiers" there would be a pront response, and a small revolution... I´m not in denial of those atrocities, or anything, but exagerating the texts isn´t gonna help. What you recomend me to do? Nationalism may not be bad, but when it starts hurting onother side, the story is different... And also, there were some texts using the very "legal" word allegedly , that he removes. FkpCascais (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

GAR notice

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Letting you know that I've placed Iron Mike on hold at GAR here. Also, I've removed the protection on your user talk page; you really shouldn't leave protections for longer than necessary, and two months and counting is excessive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Whatever" on both counts. I have more important things to do. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Little Sammy Davis

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello! Your submission of Little Sammy Davis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Kafziel Complaint Department 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Little Sammy Davis

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  On November 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Little Sammy Davis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The October 2009 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) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Kafziel,

The IP user:76.102.194.113 is removing entire sections (blanking)[7] and [8], changing numbers/dates, and not responding to messages. I inserted the numbers/dates and they correspond to citations. There are some edits which are innocuous but most are not good.

Richmondian (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the blanking is bad, but there wasn't any vandalism after the last warning. Just a couple of seemingly reasonable edits. Try engaging them in discussion instead of just using warning templates; it may be more useful than a block. Or it might not... so feel free to re-report (or come straight to me) if they start up again. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, just getting a little old. Even the edits that look OK may not be, they come without references. The numerical changes are especially troubling, that's the most likely place a micsheivous edit will sneak through. Could you possibly protect the page so that the editor will have a name?
I'm guessing he/she is either a student trying to stand up for his/her school or school staff (tone and the content addition about PE sounded more like a student). Could be a productive editor someday, maybe. Richmondian (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. Semi-protected for 1 week. Let's see how it goes. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richmondian (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncited

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It is in a cite[9] richmondian has shown me, it is he way it has been taken out of context that is not correct. Also I would say it is a bit excessive to line up these quotes in a way as to take anything controversail in an attempt to portray the man in a bad light. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the statement, as long as it cites a reliable source. I also don't think the quotes portray him in a bad light; he just sounds like Joe Clark. As long as there are reliable sources for them (preferably more than just one source) it should be fine. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this topic I have started a thread at the BLP noticeboard here . Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AIPCS

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hey kafziel

thank for the input

i am trying to get the article in god shape, trouble is everything i read about it mentions two things:

  1. great, really great, test scores
  2. cult-of-personality principal with bizarre behavior.

i can try to trim it a little but i am really not digging for this stuff. this is what the school is known for.

Richmondian (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete/Undelete

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This came up on my watchlist with respect to the page: User talk:Richmondian. I am curious as to why this might be done. Thanks Bielle (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I issued a stern warning which I decided wasn't necessary yet. I removed it from the history as a courtesy. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. An ability to self-correct is the one admin privileges I would like to have, but not enough to want otherwise to be an admin. :-P Bielle (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

McSorley's photo - communal table and classic mustard serving amongst typical mix of light and dark beers

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Kafziel,

Why are you messing with the McSorley's page and the photo's I have had up there for over 4 years? Vanity? The photo has people in it, so do many, many photo's all over wikipedia. The first photo of the outside of McSorley's has people in it, yet you are not removing that.

The photo in question, shows the communal nature and typical table setting at McSorley's. It blends in well with the outside front shot and the bartender (Brendan) carrying a large order of beers (I also posted that photo).

I have been a regular patron of McSorley's for over 25 years and know it's history well. In addition to the setting showing a typical gathering enjoying themselves at the Saloon, it now also shows a historical difference to a change just recently implemented.

Please note the famous McSorley's mustard being served in a beer mug. This has been done this way for decades. Just recently (over the last few months) a change has been made (possibly due to a board of health issue) to serve the mustard in covered containers. I do not know your particular interest in changing this one particular post that has been there for many years.

Possibly we should meet up at McSorley's to discuss. I am there frequently and would be more than happy to educate you on many of the other finer nuances of this fine establishement.

Please restore the page.

Regards,

Matt Chavez

Our Image use policy states that photos should not focus on individuals in any way that distracts from the actual subject. If you want to illustrate mustard in a beer mug, take a picture of mustard in a beer mug. If you want to show communal spirit of the bar, you can use a public domain photo from the early 1900s. This is an encyclopedia, not a web page for McSorley's or a free web host for personal photos. You removed someone else's group photo which was exactly the same as yours, presumably for the same reason I am now removing yours (and I have also listed that one for deletion). It's blatant self-promotion, and the fact that it's been sitting on the page for years doesn't mean it it's encyclopedic. We're working on getting rid of lots of things like this - right now happens to be your turn. If you have other photos to list, feel free to do so.
On a lighter note, I'll be in NY in April (for the annual pub crawl I organize) and would be happy to meet up at McSorley's. In the meantime, if you're ever in LA, I'll buy you a drink at Barney's Beanery. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You really made my day with this! Not only was the vacation well and truly earned, but I've never seen the message delivered in such an...amusing...manner. I really hope this starts a trend  : ) Doc Tropics 02:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I couldn't agree more about the template being a lighter sounding mood. Kafziel should probably make two that say
    • Because of the edits you made today, you've won yourself a 3-week (or any number and measurement) vacation from Wikipedia! Isn't that exciting?(Lorem...)
    • Because of the edits you made today, you've won yourself a short vacation from Wikipedia! Isn't that exciting? (Lorem...)
  • That would certainly be a little comic relief from the traditional ones, and hopefully deteriorate vandalism.

...mechamind90... 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User: 72.55.18.62

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I reported this user to AIV, but I noticed you removed them. The reason I put them there was (as demonstrated by their edit history, they have vandalised several pages; one of these happened to be the sandbox. They were blocked in April for six months, and appear to be continuing after this has expired. Jhbuk (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this IP only made two edits today. One was to blank their own talk page (not vandalism) and one to the sandbox (not vandalism). It's not a single person, it's a school; the editors today are not the same editors from last April. If they are actively vandalizing a page, you can let me know or report them at AIV again. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, and I'll bear it in mind, but the IP appears to have been blocked by someone else anyway. Jhbuk (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep - a little bit of active vandalism was all it took. Thanks for getting him on the radar. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Forest Lawn

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for contributing the pictures of Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Glendale.[10] Good work.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It seemed like a nice day for a drive... and for skirting a few park rules about trespassing and photography. ;) Kafziel Complaint Department 03:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, rules. BTW, The Loved One, set at a fictional Forest Lawn, is a delightful short novel and later became a hilarious movie.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Query

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Does this related to article mainspace, talk pages, initiating wikipedia-process actions, etc? Could use a minor clarification. ;) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this [11], thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Would be worthwhile to add the part about wikipedia process pages; I have seen other topic banned editors continue to engage in disruption on the topic by filing things at these sorts of pages, even while banned from the actual talk pages... Cirt (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just add "broadly construed" and it covers any weaseling around the edges. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban without evidence of wrongdoing

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Do the rules permit an admin to topic-ban a contributor merely because 2 or 3 users accuse him of a rules violation? Or is evidence such as edit diffs required?

Just asking, not planning on evading the ban. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like is given at User talk:KillerChihuahua#Disruption by Ed Poor at his conflict of interest? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The evidence of your CoI and PoV pushing was pretty obvious even to a mugwump such as myself, Ed. This sort of disingenuous posturing doesn't help your case. Crafty (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I believe my action is supported by prior complaints and the fact that you're on indefinite probation. If you feel it's time for another trip to the ArbCom, to review this and address other issues, I suppose someone will be willing to get that started. But I don't think it would go well for you. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you explanation. What I hear you saying is the topic ban is (1) because three people comlained and (2) because I am on probation, rather than (3) because of any specific evidence of wrongdoing. That seems reasonable to me, and if I were (still) an admin and didn't have time to look into it, I'd probably do the same thing myself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, what I'm saying is that those complaints added to prior problems (because I did have time to look into it) means it should be obvious. I'm trying to be nice here, Ed - I've always respected you as an editor and I think it would be unfortunate to lose you, so I'm hoping a topic ban in this case will be sufficient. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • query - did you mean for the ban to be just the articles and talk pages, or regarding the articles? IOW, how would you view this edit? Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NATHANIEL WHITE INFO

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

HELLO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHERE YOU GOT THE INFORMATION FOR NATHANIEL WHITE, THE SERIAL KILLER SENTENCED TO 150 YEARS FOR THE MURDERS OF 6 NEW YORK WOMEN. I AM THE NEICE OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS. I JUST WANTED TO READ A LITTLE MORE INTO IT. I WAS ONLY 7 WHEN IT HAPPEND, I NEVER ASKED MY PARENTS OR GRAND PARENTS, I REMEMBER VERY LITTLE, BUT LIKE I SAID I WAS ONLY 7, I AM 24 NOW, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SHARE YOUR RESOURCES. THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.56.33 (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My condolences, all these years later.
Most of the sources used are listed in the References section. The Times Herald Record covered the story very closely and there is still a great deal of information in their archives, so that was a big one. White's department ID number (DIN) is 93A4050 and some information about his location and sentence is available from the Department of corrections. I took the photo in the article myself; the house is visible on the side of Rt 17 between Goshen and Chester. Map
I hope that helps. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheDiamonds.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The November 2009 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) 18:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

McSorley's

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How is the photo that is up any different from mine? Same thing, less people.

CollinsShawn (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello Kafziel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Billy Kimball - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stupid bot. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The December 2009 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) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

From Talk:Main Page

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I find it extraordinarily troubling to see an administrator encouraging the assumption of bad faith. —David Levy 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to be troubled, because I'm not assuming anything. Everything I said there is demonstrably true. I can see how it might be troubling to see an admin speak so plainly and honestly with an anonymous editor, but there's certainly no assumption going on. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You're instructing an editor to assume that "the Main Page regulars" routinely engage in egregious misconduct. Please cite evidence to corroborate this far-reaching allegation. —David Levy 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm instructing an editor to be realistic. When anonymous editors make comments here about not liking the content, they routinely get the brush-off. This discussion is a perfect example: it's been four days, the issue was argued around in circles, became a train wreck of digressions, and - as I said would happen - the argument went on for so long that the article isn't even on the main page anymore. At one point, the anon asked what the standards are for inclusion, and you directed him to WP:CONSENSUS. Um, no... the actual standards—like 'em or not— are set forth at WP:ITN. And you know that. You've argued about the validity of the ITN guideline, you've argued about the definition of consensus (pretty BITEingly, to boot[12], especially considering how controversial the whole subject of determining consensus has always been), and now you're trying to turn it into an argument about AGF. If you really need diffs of regulars citing guidelines when it suits them, discounting them when it doesn't, calling other editors dicks, and generally blowing off anonymous users, I can do that. But I don't think it's necessary. And it's certainly not relevant to the issue of whether devil's facial tumor disease was newsworthy. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
1. You've taken this discussion far beyond the subject of whether the item warranted inclusion. As noted above, you've alleged that "the Main Page regulars" (without qualification) routinely engage in egregious misconduct. Yes, I'm asking you to cite evidence to back this very serious allegation. And please keep in mind that you'll need to include "the Main Page regulars" (without qualification), not merely a handful of isolated diffs. (There is no dispute that such edits have occurred, but you're asserting that this is the norm.)
You can omit evidence of users linking to WP:DICK, as I agree that this is an all-too-common occurrence (of which I share your disapproval).
2. Apart from the aforementioned isolated instances, your assertion regarding the treatment of IP editors is off-base. You're construing correlation as causation; editors without accounts simply are more likely to be unacquainted with our practices (and therefore more likely to post complaints about things that we won't change).
I'll also note that I've consistently and passionately argued against classist treatment of editors throughout my time at Wikipedia.
3. The editor in question did not "[ask] what the standards are for inclusion"; he/she asked about one very specific element: "What are your (or ITN's) criteria for something being 'of general interest'"? And the answer is that we discuss proposals and arrive (or don't arrive) at consensus.
4. When an editor (logged in or not) states that he/she has read Wikipedia:Consensus and nonetheless believes that consensus is gauged by counting votes and that the existence of a dispute (i.e. lack of unanimity) inherently indicates the nonexistence of consensus, I know of know better advice than to re-read the policy and try to understand what it isn't about.
5. The item aged off of the main page because no otherwise uninvolved administrator determined that its presence lacked consensus. Obviously, we disagree on the appropriateness of this outcome. As noted above, neither of us is in a position to objectively evaluate it. But if the item had been pulled, I would have regarded this as the result of a good-faith difference of opinion, not a manipulative scheme. —David Levy 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
1. I think it might be a shorter list if you can show me some diffs where anonymous users criticized the main page (apart from pointing out clear-cut factual errors) and someone actually did what they asked. I'll admit, I over-generalized on both sides: Obviously, the majority of anonymous and new users on Talk:Main Page are just there to vandalize. And not all main page regulars are abusive; Modest Genius comes to mind as one of the best ones. Maybe the problem is with the admins? I haven't done enough research to say for sure. At any rate, it's a pretty hostile world for an anonymous opinion. The archives are long and tough to navigate, but give me some time and I'll get you some diffs.
2. If that's the case, then my advice to the anon was no less correct. He was unlikely to be taken seriously from the start, and ill-equipped to counter regular editors who are able to wiki-lawyer their way through any disagreement.
3. Your answer was not that we discuss individual proposals at ITN and arrive at consensus; your answer was simply a link to WP:CONSENSUS. Not a link to the guideline—which does (briefly) discuss the significance standard—or to the discussions themselves at ITN/C. Had your reply actually been in sentence form, it might have helped.
4. Much like #3, the better advice would have been to explain it yourself. I think this might have confused the issue even more, since I never said anything about consensus being numerical. In fact, the anon(s) and I were in the minority as far as count goes, but we were making valid arguments based on the guideline (a guideline which you declared invalid after the fact, but a guideline nonetheless). All in all, quite a confusing situation for a new user, and certainly not one likely to be resolved by re-linking to the consensus policy.
5. The process is skewed because, once the content is on the main page, it defaults to "keep". As I said, only a weak consensus is formed at ITN/C (largely based on silence, and the ignorance of those not in-the-know about how our process works). A much wider consensus can be reached when those other users voice their disapproval on Talk:Main Page after the change is made highly visible, but those attempts at a new consensus are always shouted down. Usually by editors citing prior consensus (which should never be grounds for putting a stop to consensus building, but here it is). The standard consensus-by-editing doesn't work here, since only admins can edit the content. So it really boils down to "participate in the original discussion or forever hold your peace". Kafziel Complaint Department 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
1. I haven't the time to seek out diffs, and I doubt that I would find many if I did. My perception is that most such requests are declined, irrespective of whether they come from unregistered users or registered users. Whether this is good or bad is debatable, but I don't believe that unregistered users usually are discriminated against (which is not to say that they never are).
Now that you've acknowledged that you over-generalized, you needn't cite any diffs either. I fully realize that abuses sometimes occur. As someone who has been involved in heated debates in which I've argued against preferential treatment for registered users (over unregistered users) and sysops (over non-sysops), I truly hope that you don't count me among the abusive administrators.
2. My point is that unregistered users are less likely to have their requests acted upon because of the typical nature of said requests, not because they're unregistered.
3. The nomination process was pointed out by Tone (complete with a link) and acknowledged by 24.163.24.248 days earlier. You're criticising me for not pointing it out again?
I understood the user to be following up by inquiring about a specific element of this process, for which Wikipedia:Consensus was an appropriate response. Perhaps I misunderstood, but my reply was sincere (and I'm disheartened by your suggestion to the contrary).
And incidentally, I don't understand how "Please see Wikipedia:Consensus." is not a sentence.
4. I don't regard my explanatory abilities as superior to that policy. I did my honest best to help, and I can do no more than that.
5. I agree that the process is in need of improvement, though I personally perceive it as skewed toward the inclusion of certain items and the exclusion of others. —David Levy 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If several editors agree that something is ITN-worthy during the nomination process, and no one protests its inclusion during the nomination process, then that creates some kind of binding resolution? Because as far as I can tell, that's the line of thinking you're taking, and since Wikipedia content is dynamic and subject to minute-by-minute revision, I don't see how any Wikipedian could stand by that kind of policy. Do what you will with that, I'm not hellbent on getting my way on this silly issue, I'm just trying to shine some light on the kind of behavior to which Kafziel has been alluding. I'll admit that, to some degree, I've invited this kind of reaction against my request when I began my complaint by insulting (part-jokingly, mostly-not-jokingly) the regular editors who run Wikipedia's day-to-day operations, but for you to apparently stick up for some obscure news article like it's your only child is sort of comical (as is the general self-importance with which many regular editors regard themselves and their online pet-projects). It's pretty obvious you're agitated by what Kafziel is saying because it strikes a nerve, and he's willing to admit to something you'd rather not. Anyway, I've said my piece, and I'll leave it at that. Some of us have better things to do than spend countless hours squabbling with online personas in trivial cyber-turf spats. Best of luck to you, Kafziel, but if I were a betting man, I'd say you're destined for martyrdom on this issue, and probably not much more. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the problems are malicious; I think they're caused by the same complacency that comes with spending too much time on any project. That's my first rule. Whether it's the Main Page or Requests for Adminship, regular editors tend to become too self-important, too quick to dismiss outside opinions, too certain that they know it all, and generally embittered and unapproachable. That's why I don't spend too much time at any one thing. A little time at 3RR, a little time at AIV, a few discussions at the Main Page, an issue or two at AN/I, an AFD close here and there... it keeps you fresh. Ideally, the bulk of our time should be spent creating the encyclopedia, not just arguing over procedure.
I think the best possible outcome for all of this is that maybe a few regular editors will take a more proactive role in making sure rules like WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE are followed a little more closely. Judging from one of the latest discussions at Talk:Main Page, we've at least got some discussion moving on how things in ITN might be improved. If it helps improve the section (or just encourages some regulars to give the occasional anonymous editor the benefit of the doubt) then I'd say it's a not a bad start. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm baffled as to how you've interpreted that as "the line of thinking [I'm] taking," given my repeated statement that I would have respected an impartial administrator's decision to remove the entry on the basis that its inclusion lacked consensus (something that you and I—as biased debate participants—are in no position to objectively evaluate).
I've been on both ends of such a scenario; I've removed content for which consensus eroded, and I've had content that I supported or added removed because consensus eroded. I've even removed content that I supported or added when it became clear to me that it lacked consensus.
[...For] you to apparently stick up for some obscure news article like it's your only child is sort of comical...
I've merely disagreed with your assessment of the item. You appear to be stating that anything other than agreeing with you is silly. You also appear to be under the misconception that Wikipedia contains "news articles." Do you perhaps have our mission confused with that of Wikinews? To be clear, I don't mean this as an insult.
It's pretty obvious you're agitated by what Kafziel is saying because it strikes a nerve, and he's willing to admit to something you'd rather not.
Huh? I've acknowledged that the process is flawed and should be improved. You appear to be perceiving disagreement that doesn't exist. —David Levy 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Highlifepony.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Highlifepony.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Zonkers3.JPG

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zonkers3.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Kafziel - it's poor form to reverse this without discussion with me especially as you seem to be fighting against at least two others to keep your image. As for why I deleted this one ? Stupid mistake while clearing up PUI debates where I appear to have clicked on the wrong link. Looking now it seems clear that the image is not free but now has both their and your copyright mashed up together. Why not add a non-free licence, a rationale for use, and solve the problem ? Peripitus (Talk) 10:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Because nobody can show me the policy that says I have to. It's not clear at all that the image isn't free, and copyright paranoia is a slippery slope. Doesn't matter how many editors disagree with me - what matters is who's right. All I asked was for someone to show me the policy - on Wikipedia, not on Commons - and after 3 weeks, nobody has. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
For my part, though, I do apologize for my haste in undoing your action. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Roseville pinecone.jpg missing description details

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Roseville pinecone.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To be specifc, do you have you have date for the ceramic piece shown? This is so it doesn't get deleted by Commons being over-careful :).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. Circa 1935, I suppose. I really don't care what Commons likes - all I go by is what's required here. If that means it can't be moved to the Commons, that's fine by me. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, Licensing on Ceramic designs get complicated, It would be better if it's a design post 1922, to license it as 'fair use' giving as much information as possible. You can indicate your photo is relased under GFDL/CC-BY-SA seperately. I've amended the image description/licensing for this one in the preffered manner.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not a sculpture; it's a utilitarian article. It's a nice useful piece, but it's still primarily and inseparably utilitarian. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Roseville pinecone.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roseville pinecone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Better source request for File:Followme.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Followme.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:SOTM.jpg missing description details

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:SOTM.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Spatulas.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Spatulas.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Spatulas.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Spatulas.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your advice, however for the same reason, and thus avoid a possible edit war, I prefer to get away for a while from the article, until the waters will be more calm.

PD: To upload my photos, to put in my user page with that license should I upload?. Thanks before hand. Ccrazymann (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Often you'll find that, after you've stepped away for a few months, the dispute just doesn't seem so important anymore.
As far as pictures go, if they are photos you took, and if you are willing to release them for anyone to use on any site for any purpose, you can upload them as Creative Commons with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or as public domain with {{pd-author}}. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a free web host. Uploading a personal photo or two is okay, but our main focus should always be improving the content of the encyclopedia. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. A greeting for you. Ccrazymann (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

67.82.58.194

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I don't understand this block. The guy who made the edits wants to create a new account, and I can't see any reason not to. How was he evading a block? Did he have other accounts? Fred Talk 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was already blocked for vandalism under a different IP and was evading the block to continue vandalizing the same pages. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
All I see is clumsy newbie editing. I'll create an account for him and tell you its identity. He has a sort of explanation about the Mungo business, but I'll counsel him on it. Fred Talk 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. The block is 25 minutes from expiring, anyway. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


About article Battle of Tali-Ihantala

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

You blocked article Battle of Tali-Ihantala for 24 hours yesterday. It was good thing because article was "vandalised" many times during last couple of days. The problem in the block you have made is, that the article was in vandalised condition when you blocked it :D Vandalism of article began some days ago when brand new wikipedia user Koskenkorva decided to change the article according to his/her very own opinions and beliefs. Problem is that he/she makes changes to article without giving any sources supporting the edits. He/she gives some sources, but none of them have thus far had nothing to do with changes he/she tryes to make to article. You have already given one warning and one personal 24 h block to Koskenkorva, but still he/she keeps on changing articles to look better in hes/her eyes. Koskenkorva have made changes only to articles Battle of Tali-Ihantala and Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. On discussion pages of these two articles, there have been lots of discussion about the things Koskenkorva is trying to change, and almost everyone else are against these. Still Koskenkorva keeps on editing articles. Only goal seems to be to make articles look better from Russian/Soviet point of view. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia?62.216.127.93 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

First, let me clarify that the article was only semi-protected. Only anonymous and new users were locked out; any established Wikipedia editor was able to edit it. So almost anyone who felt the article needed to be changed was free to do so. If you'd like to be able to edit semi-protected articles, I encourage you to create an account and log in.
Second, when administrators protect articles, we are not generally permitted to protect the version we prefer. In the case of an edit war such as this, there is always someone who claims we protected the wrong version. In this case, the changes Koskenkorva made were not vandalism. For an explanation of what is and is not vandalism, see this page.
Finally, we block users for disrupting the encyclopedia, not for having a point of view. If Koskenkorva is able to discuss his opinions politely and without edit warring, he is welcome to continue editing. Wikipedia is built through cooperation, not through exclusion. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers and "encouragement"! I made that account as you can see:D Still, I have something more to ask about this case.
I understand that in this kind of "edit war" somebody always claims that current version of article is the wrong one. In Battle of Tali-Ihantala the article told 5,5 years that the battle ended in Finnish victory, until couple days ago user Koskenkorva started "edit war" to change it as it is now. He/she changed only the "result" and gave pretty nonsence sources and explanations for it, but didn't modify rest of article to support his/her edits. Rest of the article (all information of article) still supports the old version. Every single source about Tali-Ihantala battle supports the old wikipedia version. I cant find for example from Internet anything which doesn't support it(can you find?).
I am not only one why opposes Koskenkorva's edits. For example users Whiskey, Cinik and Kurt Leyman and couple unsigned id-users have deleted his/her edits during last couple of days. And what about discussions with Koskenkorva and his/her comments then? Koskenkorva have declared that he/she "will never accept" other version than his/her own in Tali-Ihantala article (see talk on his/her own discussion page) and he/she have stated that all but Soviet researchs (I havent seen any of those yet) and texts about Tali-Ihantala are complete bullshit. According Koskenkorva, for example the modern Finnish writing of history and finnish researchs are just revisionism and national propaganda, while Cold war era writing of history in Soviet Union is correct and perfectly acceptable. So, what are chances the get this kind of user stop editing the article as he/she sees to fit. Not very high if you ask me. What could be best solution to solve this kind of problem?Esgorde (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you've created an account - welcome! I have warned Koskenkorva that if he continues edit warring at Tali-Ihantala I will block him again immediately. He is still allowed to continue the discussion, and he is allowed to edit the article as long as he abides by our guidelines. Usually that is enough to get everyone working together, but I'll keep an eye on things.
It may be that a compromise is in order: Perhaps a paragraph in the body of the article to state the Soviet point of view as a stalemate and their reasoning. But I don't know anything at all about the battle, and I think there are enough other editors there to be able to respond to his objections and help make the decision. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Forts Clinton and Montgomery - Lt. Col. Campbell

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Sir,

I am the person you blocked. Rather than try to go back into your page and input some further information I figure it would be better to contact you this way.

I have been searching for further information on Lt. Colonel Mungo (yes that is his name) Campbell of the 52nd Regiment of Foot - British Army - killed during the final assult on Ft. Montgomery.

This past week we finally located his burial place in lower Manhattan - please note that his name does not appear in the head-stone directory compiled in the mid 19th Century (because so many older gravestones were missing), but does appear in the burial records.

As to the name Mungo - on page 43 of the list of Officers serving in America during the Rebellion he is listed: http://www.archive.org/stream/britishofficerss1897ford#page/42/mode/2up

There were over 100 other Campbells serving in the Army at that time - hence my desire to list first names.

Given your compilation of military material of this time period, I thought you should have access to this document because it digests down so much primary source information.

I had previously tweaked other historical articles of interest, but never ran into a block nor knew something like this existed. Unfortunately while trying to list his burial location while on my work computer (slow day) I damaged a heading and was unsuccessful in correcting. My goal was to have "Mungo Campbell's" full name available so that anyone else with any information might be able to create a link/reference.

I have not created an "official" account with Wikipedia and in light of this experience may not - given that I seem a bit challenged in re. to formatting and the process in general.

My apologies for what you took to be acts of vandalism.

Tom Vilardi tom_vilardi@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.58.194 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The block was more to stop the edit war but the user who reported you called it vandalism and my message reflected that. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
On the contrary, I'd say you should create an account. We have a project dedicated to military history here and we can always use new members. And it's okay to make formatting mistakes; there's nothing anyone can do to Wikipedia that can't be fixed. A new account will give you a fresh start, will make the community more likely to trust your edits, and will let you take the credit you deserve for the edits you make. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor you may be familiar with has been accused of sockpuppetry. If you have anything to add and are so inclined, the case is located here. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The January 2010 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) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lulz

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I never would have predicted that my Main Page comment would devolve into this. howcheng {chat} 04:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Been there. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chilean girls

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Kafziel, the article about White Latin American shows renowned people, and there's an user that is constantly adding a group of girls that are part of a team that nobody knows, we need to show well-known people, and those girls are not. You gave him an advice on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to understand.--Danoasis (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


HEllo

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Example: Most people believe in ghosts.[citation needed]

Nowhere does it say that photos need citations. I'm not going to put citations by the names of the people in the info box and make it look sloppy; especially since no other "peoples" page has citations by the names. Why need citations by the names anyways? I'm not arguing with you.

I didn't know telling the truth was an insult now. But to save the drama I'll change it. Good day.

Anyone can dispute content (including photos) and remove it if it is not verifiable through a reliable source. That's our verifiability policy. If a photo is not disputed (such as, for instance, a photo of an elephant on the elephant article) then it's not necessary to cite a source. But if a photo is disputed, such as the one of Shakira, you can be asked to cite a reliable source. You can't just take a vote on the talk page and overrule the person asking.
That is, however, a separate issue from the one at hand. Even if it's verifiable that those girls are part of the Chilean soccer team (which, by the way, is not the same as saying they are Chileans), consensus may not support their inclusion in that article. That will only be determined by civil discussion on the talk page or, failing that, by dispute resolution. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Secret Killer Talk Page RE:

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

That is true but at this point nobody was making a stink about any of the photos really except for that Chilean(but of course now a big deal is being made again) one ,which i was not involved in as i said above a consensus by regular editors was made to only include pics that are sourced e.g unsourced pics would be swiftly removed, again you do not need a source to add a picture or any content but it can be challenged and removed of course than the person who wants content back would have to provide WP:PROVEIT,Nobody was over riding anything i was giving my personal opinon on why i was not removing the unsourced pics i.e i did not want to keep nickle and dimeing people adding pics as nobody else was either , i think you may have misunderstood what i was conveying--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, you're not "not removing" the unsourced pics; they're already removed. So "not removing" them would entail somebody adding them again first. So you are advocating overriding objections and re-adding unsourced material. But that's not the real reason for the dispute anyway: The dispute is about whether they are notable enough to warrant using them as the example of an entire race of people (or notable at all, for that matter). Policy can't answer that; it's a matter for discussion. Kafziel Complaint Department 10:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:White Latin American

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks, Kafziel. I meant it: you're trying to help, and I know it.

But you've made a couple of faux pas already. I don't appreciate your tone in the message over at Talk:White Latin American, and I don't appreciate what you just said about a couple of blocks I got three years ago when I had scant editing experience, was being opposed by one of WP's dumbest people, and I turned out to be right in my position anyway.

But I repeat. Everything's cool. What you could to help for now is not write anything more on my talk page, please. SamEV (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:White Latin American

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks, Kafziel. I meant it: you're trying to help, and I know it.

But you've made a couple of faux pas already. I don't appreciate your tone in the message over at Talk:White Latin American, and I don't appreciate what you just said about a couple of blocks I got three years ago when I had scant editing experience, was being opposed by one of WP's dumbest people, and I turned out to be right in my position anyway.

But I repeat, everything's cool. What you could to help for now is not write anything more on my talk page, please. SamEV (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to appreciate my tone; warnings are rarely appreciated, and I'm used to that. This is not my first rodeo. As long as you get the message, and don't get dragged further into that edit war, everything is fine. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The February 2010 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) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jokes at WP:ERRORS

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Well, my personal view is that using WP:ERRORS for jokes is wholly inappropriate, because a number of people (including me) have that page watchlisted on the basis that we can help fix problems as a matter of urgency on the main page of one of the most popular websites on the world. If you mess around there, then it gets in the way of real complaints. I would have thought that an admin would have realised that. Regards, BencherliteTalk 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, would it get in the way of real complaints? Kafziel Complaint Department 18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In two ways: (1) the more people post irrelevancies there, the harder it gets to sort out the urgent from the off-topic from reading the page; (2) the reaction time of people watchlisting the page is bound to slow down if they think that the latest posting is as likely to be a joke as it is to be an urgent message. The more sparingly WP:ERRORS appears in watchlists, the more it is likely to be treated as a priority when it does. BencherliteTalk 18:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
1) Nonsense. Volumes of extraneous information is posted at ANI, AIV, etc. We manage just fine. You wouldn't get bent out of shape about someone posting what they thought was an error and turning out to be wrong, would you? It has exactly the same impact on the process (which is to say, none at all). Mine had less, in fact, because it didn't take anyone's time to research anything. 2) If you become too jaded to take ERRORS seriously just because it bumped to the top of your watchlist one time too many, there are plenty of others who will take up your slack.
It was a harmless joke, and you're obviously taking yourself much too seriously.Kafziel Complaint Department 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
1) Someone, often a newbie or anon, posting an error in good faith is one thing. Someone starting a new joke thread at ANI or AIV would, I think, be told to go elsewhere. 2) Let's not test reaction times, the errors page isn't exactly the most-watched of venues despite the fact it is linked with the main page. WP:ERRORS has 389 watchers (spread across all time zones, remember), WP:AIV has 3090, WP:ANI has 4433. BencherliteTalk 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In terms of watchlist activity and time spent responding, someone posting an error in good faith is not one iota different than someone posting a joke. Don't make it more than it was: It wasn't a dangerous precedent, it wasn't the start of a pattern, and it's not part of my usual routine (as I believe I made clear in the original post at WP:ERRORS). It was a very rare, apropos joke from someone who has earned it. If you don't get the joke, that's okay. But if you want to play the martyr, I'm not buying it. You've spent more time arguing here than anyone ever would have spent looking at the joke. Nobody appreciates anything we do on an individual level, and we're doing it all gratis, so why not have the occasional, ever-so-harmless laugh while we work? Come on. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In terms of time taken, no. But the motivation is rather different. Someone posts a joke at ERRORS, I see a watchlist change with an edit summary "mistake" and react. My time has been wasted deliberately by someone messing around. That edit didn't need to be made at all. If someone posts a good faith mistake, my time has not been wasted deliberately and I can try to explain the situation and hopefully get a positive resolution for the complainer. I'm surprised that you feel you've somehow earned the right to goof around with 4chan jokes at ERRORS. Did you earn that right by all the times you responded to error reports there in the past? No, thought not. I'm just relieved to hear you won't be repeating your attempt at humour there in future. Just keep the jokes where jokes are expected. Regards, and happy editing. BencherliteTalk 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to inject a little levity around here, so long as it's not disruptive - which this was very much not. Absolutely nothing was harmed in any way, nor would it have been if you had left it up. And, even though I don't do it on a regular basis, if you think I haven't made corrections based on reports at ERRORS, you are very much mistaken. But if it will make you feel better, I'll take today's portion of my admin salary and donate it to charity. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Can't say fairer than that. I'll not only match your donation, I'll raise it over 9,000 times... BencherliteTalk 21:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. That's the spirit! :D Kafziel Complaint Department 21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I do get a few meme references, not many though (as I demonstrated earlier!); and I wouldn't have got the "over 9,000" one if I hadn't seen Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CharlotteWebb/dubious statistics the other day when closing an MfD that I'd seen mentioned on someone's talk page, which was still on my watchlist after a discussion about a FA, which I'd seen because (continued page 94)... the serendipitous joys of Wikipedia, eh? Cheers, BencherliteTalk 21:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Garfunkel and Oates

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Good point on the need to expand the article. I've removed the tag.

I don't believe the refimprove (or expand tags for that matter) require discussion. If they do so, could you point to some guideline or essay stating so? In the meantime, I hope you're not offended by reminding you to focus on content rather than editors, and please "focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users" per WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a tag is to draw attention to the article by those capable of improving it. Without discussion, how would anyone know how to improve the article? Without a related talk page section, the tag just serves to say "Somebody doesn't like this article and is determined to have some kind of banner at the top." It's a tactic as old as the banners themselves.
There are currently in-line citations for almost every sentence in the article, with the exception of sentences which cite their own sources; if those are the sentences you'd like to see in-line citations for (which, by the way, are not required either) just use a fact tag so the editors who want to improve the article know what you'd like to see. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"Without a related talk page section, the tag just serves to say 'Somebody doesn't like this article and is determined to have some kind of banner at the top.' It's a tactic as old as the banners themselves." I've already linked and quoted WP:BATTLE. Wasn't that enough for you?
"There are currently in-line citations" Good point. While the quality of the references leaves a great deal to be desired, it's probably the best we can do until they get more press coverage. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
BATTLE does not mean nobody can ever talk to anyone about what they're doing. It has been you, and you alone, adding various tags over all these months, so it merited a specific mention. It wasn't some personal attack out of left field; it was at the heart of the matter. And frank discussion obviously served us both well in this case, so don't take it personally. Good outcome. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"BATTLE does not mean nobody can ever talk to anyone about what they're doing." Agreed. Of course, no one is claiming anything so absurd, right?
"It wasn't some personal attack out of left field; it was at the heart of the matter." More justification for your BATTLE violations?!! Take a break. Come back when you can be civil. --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you got hung up on WP:BATTLE, but it simply doesn't apply here. I spoke with you about your actions at the article and your improper use of numerous templates, you saw your error, and you corrected it. I didn't accuse you of any malicious intent—I told you that templates without talk serve no purpose (fact), that they serve only to highlight someone's general dissatisfaction with the article (fact), and that it is a very old tactic (fact). I didn't say you were guilty of it yourself; if I thought the additions were in bad faith, I wouldn't have bothered talking to you about it in the first place. I was telling you that it didn't look good, under the assumption that you, an editor in good standing, would do the right thing (which you did). As far as I'm concerned, that's sufficient.
If you really feel you've been slighted in some way, you are free to take it up the chain. Otherwise, just move on. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure how you got hung up on WP:BATTLE" Simply read what you wrote, and compare it to the quote from BATTLE that I've provided you above. I didn't think you'd try to justify your comments, some of which are simply absurd like the one mentioned above, as well as how you started this off with "if you're not willing to improve it or even to suggest changes on the talk page, a tag isn't useful." Ever read WP:OWN? How about WP:AGF? --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I have. I've been an administrator for a few years now, so you can rest assured I have a passing familiarity with basic policy. Simply linking to it doesn't mean it applies. As far as the article goes: If you're not willing to improve it or even suggest changes on the talk page, a tag isn't useful. That's a fact. You chose to remove it rather than list your grievances on the talk page, as is your right, and that's a-okay with me. I was by no means out of line asking you to expand upon your complaint, given your insistence of keeping a tag on the page.[13][14][15][16]
The level of harassment and personal attacks I'm willing to take varies by editor, and while I'll admit you haven't gone quite as far as some, you've gone far enough. If you think you have a leg to stand on, by all means bring it to dispute resolution. I'm not worried in the least. Otherwise, we're done here. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"The level of harassment and personal attacks I'm willing to take varies by editor" Sorry if you feel anything I've written is harassment or personal attacks. I'm happy to refactor anything I've written. I've struckout what I assume has caused this reaction from you. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bygones, seriously.
I've been busy in real life the last few days, and the G&O article is kind of low on my Wikipedia radar, but I'll try to address your points about refs and content in the next few days. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope editors who make accusations against other editors, especially accusations of being unwilling to discuss concerns, would be willing to discuss those accusations. I'm not demanding it though.

I'll tag articles as I see fit, and restore those tags as I see fit. I find your concerns about tagging articles to be at odds with basic Wikipedia policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Then. Take. It. Up. The. Chain.
If you don't want to do that, stop trolling here. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JimBeamLabel.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In the News picture

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You removed the ITN picture, but left the (pictured) text. --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So I did. Thanks for the note - I've fixed it. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Happy Kafziel's Day!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 

User:Kafziel has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kafziel's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kafziel!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Kafziel. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 02:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DustiSPEAK!! 02:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"open keeps"

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I see where you have taken some of the old pages off the list at the PUF holding cell perFile:KafzielsFlowChart.svg and I appreciate your position. The only potential issue is that the files still have the template on them for deletion and that should probably be removed, so that the files do not stay in one of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute forever. Could you maybe remove the template from these before you remove the page from the holding cell? --After Midnight 0001 09:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a bot. ;)
But seriously, I do see your point. That occurred to me while I was working on the March 11 PUFs yesterday so I removed several from a group that I kept. I can't guarantee I'll always do it, but I will if I think there may be some confusion about the result. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah, if only a bot could follow your flow chart ;)
I'll try to help out with removing tags from ones that might still be there after the page is removed from the holding cell. --After Midnight 0001 20:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:24.118.42.187

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you so much for blocking this IP. I had a hard time convincing any sysops that this IP was acting out of bad faith and needed to be blocked. Kudos, and have a great Easter! DustiInsert Sly Comments 23:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The March 2010 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) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

wikiproject sikhism

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't think anybody is running that project but if want some help in expanding sikhism related articles just leave me a message on my talk page --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The April 2010 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) 19:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bette Davis

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Im from Spain, just register yesterday at wikipedia :) Loved your grave picture from Bette Davis. Thanks you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgacto (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad you like it! Kafziel Complaint Department 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Orphaned non-free media (File:Almajalla.PNG)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Thanks for uploading File:Almajalla.PNG. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Melesse (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not orphaned. It's part of an article I started a little while ago. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The May 2010 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) 21:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pending Changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Per the protection notice "for the first phase of the trial, only pages listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue may be protected under pending changes." Not only that, gloating about page protection is totally unacceptable. Prodego talk 05:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unaccceptable to who? You? Kafziel Complaint Department 05:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you take a read of Wikipedia:Administrators to remind yourself what adminship is. Prodego talk 05:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm working here. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thread 404'd. I can discuss this now, if you really feel that's necessary. Sorry about missing the procedural nuances of the PC trail; I wasn't up to speed on that. Had never seen it before. I was just putting some short-term protection up, and that seemed like the best way to do it. And if by "gloating about page protection" you're referring to my post on /b/, that wasn't gloating; I was speaking their language, and it worked. They gave up and moved on. Ends, means, etc. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the above conversation, pending changes was inappropriate anyway. If a page is going to be vandalized, protect it. Pending changes is for cases where we want to have an edit reviewed before it goes live (such as to deal with COI), etc., not to deal with vandalism (otherwise the page history will still become cluttered with nonsense). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, was not familiar with the whole pending changes thing. New to me. Saw it, used it. Already apologized for the mistake. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I think it's a great idea. Educating myself on it now. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the future, WP:RBI. This is a game to them, and we will only win if we don't play. Prodego talk 05:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, we just won because we did play. The game is a bit different on /b/: They knew I was there - wouldn't have believed it without the pic - and they lost interest. You're welcome, Wikipedia. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
They already know we are watching. You do not need to comment to tell them so. Commenting puts a face on their opponent - no longer are they futilely battling against nothing and accomplishing nothing, now they are battling against the forces of you. And you will lose. Let it be boring, read WP:RBI, and don't entice vandals again. Prodego talk 05:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't lose, did I? I'm quite familiar with how this all works, thanks. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on your actions and your comments, you are not at all familiar with how to deal with vandals. Please refrain from doing so until you do. Prodego talk 05:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I'll see your WP:RBI and raise you a WP:POINT. You were in a huff about me, took it too far, and removed a perfectly useful page protection, immediately allowing the page to be vandalized. It was so pointy, you might as well have vandalized it yourself. Now, I didn't feel it was necessary to lecture you about that, and I'm sure as hell not going to listen to you lecture me about the meaning of adminship. You've clearly had a chip on your shoulder since you first showed up here. We all know about not feeding trolls, and to an extent that's true, but I'm right in this case. The proof is in the pudding. I got results, you didn't. I'm not asking for praise, just a tiny iota of respect. Let's just move on. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been quoted!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just letting you know, you've been officially used as a reference in Administrator abuse on Wikipedia. :) (From your posts at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism/Archive 7) -- œ™ 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A dubious honor, considering how far out of context the quote is... but so be it. :) Kafziel Complaint Department 07:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello My Boss

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello My Boss, Kafziel, please give me much more advice for my better contributions here. Cheers! RendyKunKun (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi sir

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi sir my name is khaled and i'm user here from long time all i want to do to creat page about our site link is here http://www.superinfantryclan.com/about and try to do that can you help me please and can you tell me if that ok or not thanks sir for reading and eplay here page i made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superinfantryclan

thnaks khaled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaled k (talk • contribs) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Show (song)

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Kafziel, would you be interested in cleaning up the links that point to this new disambig page per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGatalk 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I did fix a lot of them, but for most of the ones that are left I can't seem to find how exactly they link to that page. For instance, take Cheryl Cole. There is no direct link to The Show (song) that I can find in the article, and I fixed the link in Template: Girls Aloud but that didn't seem to help. Same problem with most of the rest. I've spent about as much time as I'm willing to spend trying figure it out. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see. The nature of templates is to blame. When a template is edited, any article that transcludes it does not become "aware" of the change to the template until that article is recompiled. So the Cheryl Cole article still believed it linked to The Show dab even though in reality it no longer does. I did a null edit on the Cheryl Cole article, which forced an update, and dropped it from the "What links here" list. The other pages will be auto-updated within the next few days, so you're done! Thanks much for letting me know. --JaGatalk 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I figured it was a cache issue; I forced a refresh and it fixed several dozen pages but those few remained. Oh, well. I leave stuff like that to the gnomes. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jessi Slaughter Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just letting you know that I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_protection_of_Jessi_Slaughter_cyberbullying_case to discuss your protection of the article. While I appreciate your motives, your full and indefinite protection of the article over a content dispute in which you are involved was inappropriate and excessive. I sincerely hope that we can resolve the dispute without impeaching peoples' motives or characterizing others' good-faith contributions as "vandalism." Ingersollian (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take a closer look next time. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYK for The Show (Doug E. Fresh song)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RendyKunKun

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

May I enquire who he is a sock of for reference in future unblock requests? S.G.(GH) ping! 07:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's an obvious sock. The account was created with the sole purpose of harassment. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

thank you very much howdo i add userboxes i know how to get there but what to do please contact me in my discussion box called Open chat thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalShark (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Art LaPella has answered this question on your user page. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

srry

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

some guy called donald told me warning for something i already was told about and i told him srry but he said last chance after i said sorry. That game thing was something i did around 3o mins ago then i was told by someone warning ever since then ive been talking about important stuff and reading other things go to wolf discussion and go to the article called alpha and omega i did that. i stopped the stupid stuff srry any ways and that donald duck guy bugs me read my user discusions to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalShark (talk • contribs) 00:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC) gtg dinnerMetalShark (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I heard your one of the leaders on hear can you give me some advice for wikiMetalshark02 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Userfication

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, Kitchen Budapest article was deleted, can I ask you to userfy it for me please? I would like to develop it further. Cheers. Attila Bujatt (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. You can find the article contents at User:Bujatt/Kitchen Budapest. Since it has been deleted twice already, please check with other users at Requests for Feedback to get consensus before returning it to the article space. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

im metalsharks friend

Empower India Conference

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I found that you deleted the article Empower India Conference and its contents (images) etc. Could you please help me to understand the background for deletion. I am curious to know as I was part of the edits before -- Sundaram7 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that was more than three years ago. Second, I did not delete the related images. Third, upon review, it is still blatant spam. It's possible that the event is now notable (I really have no idea) but at the time it made no such claim. Its sole purpose was to promote the event. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for deleted page

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I saw your name on a list of admins that can send me a page that someone deleted. I think the page had a ton of sources and was notable so am hoping to make some changes to it. But since it was just removed, I can't locate it. Would you be able to send it to me? I have most of the Read part of the article, but really would like to get the Edit part so I don't have to recreate all of the sources, etc. The page is Jasmere.com. Thanks very much. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon review, that article looks very much like spam. The sources don't seem to support its notability; checking a few random citations, I actually didn't see one that even mentioned the website. The page has been deleted several times before, including once through a full deletion discussion, and it doesn't seem likely that it will ever warrant an article. If you want a copy, please continue your discussion with the deleting admin, here, and ask him to provide one. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hotel Muna

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Please stop moving these pages. Officially the hotel says Hotel Muna. Wikipedia goes by what is official regardless of whether a few crummy newspapers refer to it as the Muna hotel. So would I if I referring to it. But Hotel Muna is official in the hotel company logo and sign. Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sign on the building is not written in English and therefore does not use English conventions. The sources reflect that. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BBC Somali Hotel Muna. Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And, again, that site is not in English. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about??? Look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/somali/war/2010/08/100824_muna_hotel.shtml Watch the video. Pause at 0-12. Not English??? Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the video entitled "Daawo weerarka Hotel Muna"? That one? The sign at :12 is in Arabic and French. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hotel Muna is still what it is called. I've started numerous hotels in north Africa which are called Hotel ..... If you disagree with this naming for hotels please open a RFC. i suppose Hotel California is also French.. And Hotel Chelsea... Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We can continue this on the article talk page; I'm not going to have parallel discussions with you. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you list the Arabic name name in the hotel article for me? Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing! Kafziel Complaint Department 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, that solves the alternative language naming problem! Thanks. Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

hey

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

why is my page been consider spam. im not trying to spam this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckhartjimenez (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Denial is step one of the process.
Your attempt to tag it as a "good article" tells me you know enough about Wikipedia to know better. I'm not sure where you copied the information from, but it is clearly intended to promote that series and does not assert notability in any way. What channel is this show on? I can't find any evidence of it being televised. Is it a web series? If so, in what way does it meet our criteria? You appear to have a conflict of interest with the subject; in a case like this, it's better to let a neutral person write the article. A good rule of thumb is, if it's important enough to have an article, someone else will write one. I'm willing to give you a chance to stop on your own, rather than immediately blocking you for spam, but denial will get you nowhere. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
To be honest i have no idea how to do what u say im doing i took that coding from the friends shwo page and change the info to my show how would i fix this so i can be take off the spam list because is not my intention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckhartjimenez (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no list. Just edit constructively according to the guidelines I posted on your talk page, don't re-create the article, and you'll be fine. You have not been blocked, just warned; your slate is clean. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


ok thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckhartjimenez (talk • contribs) 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my article on James Jay Lee

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do I have to cite my sources? Here: [[17]]

Yes, you do have to cite sources. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Harness Racing Museum

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello..

My name is Paul Wilder. I am the research librarian at the Harness Racing Museum & Hall of Fame in Goshen, NY. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor!

It has only recently come to the attention of the Harness Racing Museum that the Wikipedia article is full of serious errors, top to bottom. Most serious of these errors is the linkage between the Museum and the Goshen Historic Track, which are two separate entities and really should have separate articles.

The director of the Museum had asked me to have these errors corrected, which I tried to do today, but obviously I don't understand what the proper method to do this is.

Bottom line, the Harness Racing Museum & Hall of Fame would like to be the "author" of its own Wikipedia article, which until now it has never been. We would like the article to be accurate, which it was not. The version I worked on today corrected inaccuracies. We would like to be "the horse's mouth," so to speak.

Please tell me what the proper method for doing this is.

Thanks.

Ptwilder (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. First let me say thanks for your edits - although I had to reset the article to its previous version to start over, I do intend to reinstate most of your edits.
It looks like the two articles are already separate - one at Historic Track and one at Harness Racing Museum & Hall of Fame - so all that was needed was a little trimming of the track info out of the museum article. To avoid conflicts of interest we do not allow companies to write and maintain their own articles; you are of course welcome to edit (as long as you follow our guideline) and I'll be happy to help however I can. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Harness Racing Museum

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks, Kafziel ...

I guess I didn't mean the Museum wanted to "take possession" of the article, but just to provide the accurate information. Thanks for taking out the Historic Track stuff. I do hope you will add the information I supplied the other day. Do you need some sort of official source information from me? I haven't yet done any "footnoting" on Wikipedia.

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptwilder (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Cruzieros.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cruzieros.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

William James Wanless

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the same . I have made necessary changes to the article. Kindly have a look William James Wanless.-- . Shlok talk . 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome to the "I'm amazed you're an admin club"! You may not be aware that MickMacNee has a RFC/U running against me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. As others have said, the real issue is MMN's conduct during AfDs and DRVs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243 is typical of his behaviour there, although he has toned down the language a little. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I hope I don't have to repeat myself. I'll consider it a momentary lapse of judgment on your part. But if it happens again, you're going to be the one with an ANI posting. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are prohibited when there is a conflict of interest over a content dispute, not for personal attacks. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Yeah, as questionable blocks go, this wasn't all that questionable. However the rationale for the unblock was lousy. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William James Wanless

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello! Your submission of William James Wanless at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (regarding user MickMacNee) Sven Manguard Talk 03:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just got finished dealing with some crazy incivility with a different user, so I think I'll sit this one out if I can. I need a vacation from the drama. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I act on the basic principle that even complete strangers deserve protection from attacks. I felt that he had gone too far and decided that if no one else was going to enforce the golden rule, that I might as well step in. I would hope that others would come to my defense were I ever attacked, although I know this is rare, and I ask nothing from you in return. It seems the community believes that his actions were not as severe as I saw them to be, and I bow to that consensus. Sadly, everything I see indicates that he is a pattern offender, and that someday someone will be back at ANI for the same reason. Hope this didn't cause you any trouble. Sincerely, Sven Manguard Talk 05:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No trouble at all. Your intentions were good, and I appreciate the effort. All the best. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian tea culture

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I just reverted one of your edits to this page; I feel strongly about the reversion that I made being the correct thing to do in this case, and I would encourage you to discuss this on the talk page before making further edits as I want to avert an edit war. Cazort (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, "edit war"? You removed refs, I restored them... almost a month ago. You're the one who wants to remove references; why would I have to be the one to discuss it, instead of you? Obviously there are at least two editors who think they're better than nothing (me, and the guy who originally cited them) so if you don't like them, then you should bring it up on the talk page before removing them, rather than just taking them out and proclaiming that everyone else has to seek your approval before restoring them.
If these were contentious claims about living persons, that would be different. But the sources are used to back up very minor claims about the history of tea. There's no urgent need to remove them. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I still very strongly disagree (and explain on the talk page), but I've found two print sources that I think everyone will agree are more reliable, so the point for this article is hopefully closed. But I still object on principle here. I did bring the sources up on the talk page when I removed them, and no one provided any reply or justification for keeping them. How can the burden of explanation be on me, when I have explained how I see my edits are in line with Wikipedia's policy, and other editors did not respond or give any such explanation? Cazort (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Because they're sources. If you don't like them, you can use the {{refimprove}}, {{primary sources}}, or {{unreliable sources}} banners to ask other editors to help find better ones. At the very least, if you remove sources you don't like, you should put a {{fact}} tag at each spot, so people know that a cite is needed. If you just delete them, nobody will ever know they were there. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William James Wanless

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Angel Baby sample.ogg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Angel Baby sample.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it used to have one, and the template was deleted on October 2. Whoever deleted the template should have replaced it in the affected files. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Global islamic state

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is this suddenly deleted? This phrase is pretty common on the internet. Redhanker (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Caliphate is about the political term; if someone is searching for information about a global Islamist state, that article will not help them. So it is an unlikely redirect. Secondly, it's blatantly POV to redirect that phrase to that article. It's a common tactic which basically amounts to a back-door attempt at renaming the article. For the same reason, we don't redirect "capitalist nightmare" to the article about republics. Lastly, "Islam" is spelled with a capital "I". But if you disagree with the deletion, you are free to contest it. I won't object. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User 24.253.41.64 - six month block and at it again.

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

24.253.41.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked by you for a six month period for repeated vandalism, and the block just recently expired a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have learned anything and have gone right back to crufty, uncited, POV filled edits on articles such as Jo Danville, and adding characters with no citations whatsoever to Law and Order: Criminal Intent and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Would you please be so kind as to check into this? I already know from having dealt with IP Vandals before that unless Admin practically catches them in the act, a report to AIV is almost useless. Thank you. Trista Triste Tierra 03:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like any blatant vandalism at this point, just someone not very familiar with our guidelines. Probably a kid who will soon lose interest, but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for letting me know - Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dance of Death (novel)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Dance of Death (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable per WP:BK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Dance of Death (novel) for deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion has begun about whether the article Dance of Death (novel), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance of Death (novel) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Awaaz foundation

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to add logo and one photo to Awaaz Foundation. This article is in DYK queue 3. Foundation have authorise me to use these logo and photo in the article. Kindly let me know which copyright tag should I use? . Shlok talk . 07:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. It looks like this is done now. Do you still need help with anything? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heaven

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Belatedly reading your instructions on top of page and moved it back to mine. DocOfSoc (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just read your user page: LMAO! Well done! As an aside, I was actually born in Los Angeles, as was my Dad, which makes us very strange! LOL Loved the userbox! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have a young man following me around hound and reverting my edits. He has now attacked our beloved Pasadena and eliminated an entire section which I rolled back. He is simply not pleased with me due to another article, ( I'll explain, if you care.) Need your help here. Would you cruise on over and comment? I am almost ready to go to ANI, but I hate to do that. BTW Are you old enough to have cruised Colorado Blvd. in the late 60s? It was the bomb! LOL. Respectfully, second generation Angeleno  ;-)...DocOfSoc (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

^5 on SRQ sock puppet! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding [18], please see this violation. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I will use the regular process for dealing with this. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Ed_Poor. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I was (literally) out to lunch. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Update = user was blocked after the AE report. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting January 14

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

What do you think about unprotecting January 14? You semi-protected it back in Feb 2009 diff due to some edit warring over a bin Laden video that had been released around that time. I think it is unlikely this edit war is going to recur. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think all numbers, dates of the year, days of the week, and letters of the alphabet should be semi-protected. There's absolutely nothing of value that a new or anonymous user can possibly add that could ever make up for the amount of vandalism that goes on in those articles. But I have no problem with removing it if you feel it's harmful in some way. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protecting all of the days of the year articles is tempting, I've often thought about it. It would certainly save me a lot of time and effort, and these pages get more than their fair share of nonsense added to them. In the end I think it's a bad idea though. IP's do make useful edits to these pages sometimes, and most of the nonsense gets cleaned up fairly quickly, with very little lasting more than a day. Unless there is a specific reason to semi-protect one of these articles I'm generally in favor of keeping them open for everyone to edit. I'm not especially fussed either way tho. Pending changes review is an interesting idea, but I don't think it's a good idea to apply that to all of these articles. In general I tend to think the pending changes thing is mostly useful for BLP's. Just my two cents. Of course any mass changing of the protection status of DOY pages should be discussed at WT:DAYS first. Winston365 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Nah... WikiProjects are mostly just a more organized way to violate WP:OWN. There's no reason to run anything by them, except to avoid the inevitable harassment that comes from defying them. I'm not a big fan of bullies or bureaucracy.
I know most editors subscribe to the theory that anonymous editors are important, and it used to be true (before 2006 or so) but it has been a long time since the good edits outweighed the bad. I think pending changes is a nice compromise, because anonymous editors can edit every page. Is there really anything that's going to change on the subject of January 14th that will be so important it can't possibly wait one minute for someone to review the change before it goes live, and yet not important enough for a registered user to have already made the edit? I've had this discussion many times over the years, and I have yet to see an example of something like that. On any subject, let alone something like a date or a letter. Criticisms of Wikipedia always center around vandalism and inaccurate edits; nobody ever criticizes us for protecting articles. We lose far more credibility (and far more potential editors) because of bad edits than we lose because of semi-protection or pending changes review. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, works for me. Having January 14 under pending changes protection certainly isn't going to do any harm, and should help keep out the cruft. Thanks. Winston365 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pasadena et al

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

moved post duh! Sorry! DocOfSoc (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Spatula

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, My name is Austin.

I have been searching high and low for a specific spatula that my dad used everyday before it broke. Somehow I stumbled across the picture you took of the 5 different spatulas. The spatula I am looking for is the one on the far right. I have been looking for this for over a year. Do you know the name of the maker or the style or any information that could help me find one to purchase? I appreciate any info you have. Thanks Alot, Austin. anall44@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.178.140 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

car burglary picture

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I want to use your photo for a background to some graphs I am using in my news story. Do you want attribution? if so, what name?

thanks, Adam Balinski abbalinski@gmail.com 69.169.154.14 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. You're welcome to use the photo without attribution. Thanks for asking. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.220.165 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm Batman. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Userfication of "berkeley igem team" page

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I would like to request a userfication of the berkeley igem team wiki page. I noticed that it was tagged as not notable enough, so I found several sources to verify that it has received enough press coverage from independent reliable to be deemed "notable."

Here are the sites: http://www.synberc.org/iGEM/ucb/ http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/berkeley/igem/team/finalist/at/jamboree.php http://sanfrancisco.about.com/b/2008/11/12/uc-berkeley-team-a-finalist-at-igem-2008.htm http://www.bioethics.gov/documents/synthetic-biology/The-International-Genetically-Engineered-Machine-Competition-and-The-Registry-of-Standard-Biological-Parts.pdf http://sciencereview.dreamhosters.com/articleex.php?issue=19&article=features_04_factory http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Berkeley_UC

Please consider this, Thanks, Harrison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlucb (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What was the article name? I searched for "Berkeley IGEM team" and I don't see anything, even in deleted articles. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Secret killer (talk · contribs)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you take a look at the edits made by Secret Killer on the White American article? They seem to be trying to settle a score related to the now-deleted White Argentine article, and I note that you provided advice on the sourcing of collages that they are now applying with great rigor. I don't particularly like those collages, and tend to agree that he has a point about sourcing, but it doesn't excuse edit-warring over it in my opinion. Since they previously tried to redirect the entire article to an Eminem album on the grounds that it was "unsourced", it appears that they're using the collage sourcing issue as a wedge. A second opinion would be appreciated. Acroterion (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped, so hopefully that's the end of it. Thanks for the heads-up. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Radio Battalion PC

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please reconsider use of Pending Changes on Radio Battalion, given the ongoing RfC on use of PC, and the notice regarding its use, and...well, the fact that there is no consensus for using it, beyond a trial period of 2 months which was from June 2010. Please see WP:PCRFC and feel free to comment there.  Chzz  ►  00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus not to use it, either. If it wasn't supposed to be used, I wouldn't be able to use it. I think it's a friendlier alternative to the semi-protection I could have used instead. I'm not particularly interested in any RFC about it; I don't mind if they do away with Pending Changes, but I will use the tools I have while they are available. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article on Godhra train burning

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I would like to know what exactly is not clear in the edit. Is it about rarest of the rare(mentioned in the link by high court judge), or the word carnage or the decision of high court judge. I am sure you are not questioning decision of high courts of India. 210.89.52.123 (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The rarest of the rare what? The rarest sort of thing to happen on a train? The rarest sort of arson? The rarest kind of violence? It doesn't mean anything without a noun. I'm sure that doesn't matter to the author of that article, since it's written in absolutely terrible English, but it certainly matters here.
At any rate, whatever he was on about, it doesn't need to be in the lead section, let alone in the very first sentence of the entire article. That is for immediately identifying the subject. See WP:LEAD. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The case was judged a criminal conspiracy. The rarest of rare therefore means rarest of rare criminal conspiracy. I think the gruesome conspiracy can not be described in civilized terms as 'incident' but for regular practice (however regular practices are not meant to be followed for rarest of rare criminal conspiracies). The terms like carnage and massacre are perhaps the nearest to describe such 'acts'. About the noun part, the sentence has the word 'incident' as the noun part I think. By the way, what is the Complaint Department number request doing in this section on your page? 180.188.234.180 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't make any sense. What is rare - conspiracies themselves? No. Conspiracies to commit violence? Nope, not rare at all. Conspiracies to burn trains full of Hindu pilgrims in a specific area of India? If we're getting that specific, then every crime is rare because every crime is unique. The statement would be meaningless, because it would apply to everything.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, or what your reason is for wanting to add that phrase to the article, but it doesn't seem to mean what you think it means and it doesn't seem to have any particular relevance to the article itself. I'm sure the court ruling was well-written and quite detailed, and there are probably many other sensible statements; just because some journalist chose to quote that phrase out of context as part of a short and poorly-written online story, that doesn't mean we have to use it as well. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat, "About the noun part, the sentence has the word 'incident' as the noun part I think." Therefore it stood there as rarest of rare incident, or criminal conspiracy etc.

As it is, every crime is not rare. I am puzzled at such a kind of arbitrary statement on Wikipedia. As in the judgement of the High Court, the article also mentions that "The prosecutor said that this was perhaps the first case in the country in which 11 people have been awarded capital punishment." - another indicator of the incident being rarest of rare. There is no doubt in my mind that it is indeed rarest of the rare incident.

About your understanding of "some journalist chose to quote that phrase out of context as part of a short and poorly-written online story", the entire text is taken from the ruling of the High Court, lawyers of High courts of both sides and Nanavati Comissions headed by retired Chief Justice of India. Comparing it (w.r.t. http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html) with this article http://www.economist.com/node/10251282?story_id=10251282 of the Economist, the language is completely neutral. If this is poorly written and the above mentioned article from the Economist is considered well written, then the only thing I would like to say is that there is no meeting of mind here and I would not like to continue discussing this point henceforth.

(again, quoting myself)"By the way, what is the Complaint Department number request doing in this section on your page?". What is its significance? 180.188.234.180 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The complaint department is not "in this section"; it is everywhere I sign my name. Registered users have signatures, and that is part of mine. When not on this page, it can bring users here. Since you're already here, it doesn't matter.
The text is not taken from the court ruling. The cited source says "Special judge P R Patel considering the case as "rarest of rare" pronounced death penalty for 11 out of the 31 convicted in the case..." and goes on to quickly sum things up. It is not the transcript of the trial or the text of the official ruling.
In fact, the phrase comes from a 1983 Supreme Court ruling which stated that the death penalty was to be used only in the "rarest of rare cases". It is not used here literally to state that the conspiracy itself was rare; it was quoted in this case to justify the execution of those 11 convicts as an unusual case. (For more information on that phrase, see here.) This statement is not in the least bit necessary in the lead of the article and, as you can see in the link I posted, it is not unique to this case. It is actually criticized for being over-used so is not particularly relevant to the train burning article. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out about complaint department text, I thought someone was going to complain about IP from your side with/without your knowledge.

I am not sure if you are an anti capital punishment activist. From my side I can say that I do not want to miss the wood for the trees. The hanging is not the rarest of the rare crime (it is just punishment), the ghastly act of burning women and children pilgrims is the rarest of the rare crime. Justifying execution of 11 comes from rarest of rare massacre, this is what I make from the article. The judge considered the case rarest of rare and then pronounced judgment.

I hope you are not watering down the massacre as a normal crime. It is indeed a rarest of rare ghastly massacre in my opinion and my head hangs in shame if seriousness is watered down, what will I answer to the families of pilgrims burnt alive and the dead? 180.188.234.193 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Blessing of the Bikes

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have been conducting my own personal research on the Blessing of the Bikes. I came across your page. However, I believe your page leaves the reader to believe the first Blessing of the Bikes was in 1999.[19] This page should be amended to reflect: "The first mass blessing of bicycles at the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in New York City was held in 1999." There are many resources online that reflect Blessing of the Bikes were being conducted in other places before 1972 .[20] Elseegee (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the first blessing of bicycles was held in 1999. The older ones were for motorcycles ("bikes"). I'd say those go back to at least 1969, but reliable sources are hard to find. If you have sources and want to expand the article, please feel free! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Ed Poor and the Unification Church

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I sent a formal request to the arbcom ban appeal committee to have the topic ban of Ed Poor for the talk pages of the Unification Church related articles lifted. I am not sure whether I took the right procedure. May be I should have posted at ANI instead? Andries (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you did the right thing. You should get a decision within a week. Keep me posted! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2 Please comment there, because you are involved. Andries (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I enforced the arbcom decision because I was completely uninvolved. They needed an admin to close it and I happened to be available at that moment. I don't have an opinion on the situation itself, so I don't have anything to comment on. Thanks for the update, though. Can't hurt to be informed. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You took the decision to include talk pages for the topic ban, so I continue to hold the opinion that you are involved. Andries (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I informed the arbcom that you consider yourself uninvolved. diff Andries (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
As you like, though I really don't understand the hostility that is suddenly becoming apparent here. My lack of involvement is not a matter of opinion. Talk pages were included in the topic ban long before I ever got there; I enforced the ban as requested, but have nothing constructive to add to either side of an appeal discussion. If the appeal is granted, that is 100% fine with me. If the ban is upheld, that's okay, too. I don't know Ed Poor and have no idea what happens at the Unification Church articles or their talk pages. I wouldn't even have noticed if the ban was lifted. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No hostility was intended. Andries (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I requested the arbcom some time ago to make in general a distinction between article topic ban and talk page topic ban. They agreed with the distinction. I do not know when I asked this. Andries (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:LCAC.jpg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LCAC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. XLerate (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Responded on the deletion page. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikinic

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! The Los Angeles Wikinic is fast approaching, and we need intrepid volunteers to bring supplies and whatnot. I've posted a little info and a sign-up sheet at Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/4 so please let me confirm your attendance and sign up to bring something. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:RileySawyers.jpg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RileySawyers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed the day when David Fuchs was elected Arbiter of All Things Fair Use. Or the day that he claimed to aspire to the title, for that matter. One person's decision does not set a precedent by which all other content should be judged. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

John A. Lejeune

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could you provide any background information regarding your post "JohnALejeune.jpg", specifically where image was taken or where the original is housed? Many thanks, Scro0271 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say. The portrait appears to be dated 1912 in Heddesdorf, Germany (now part of Neuwied), but it looks as if he has two stars on his epaulet and he didn't make Major General until 1918. So if I'm seeing those stars correctly, the portrait is probably from 1919, when he led the 2nd Division into Germany (after which he left Europe for Virginia). Maybe the "9" somehow just looks like a "2" at that resolution. Circa 1919 would be my guess.
If you mean when/where the drawing was digitized, that I don't know. Looks like the original might now be housed at the Virginia Military Institute. Hope that helps. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the tips, which led to: the Lejeune portrait was painted by Joseph Cummings Chase in 1918 (oil on academy board) and is owned by the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History (reference 117218/37707). It was also reproduced (b/w) in Chase, Joseph Cummings. Soldiers all: portraits and sketches of the men of the A. E. F. (New York : Doran, 1920). Scro0271 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to know! Glad I could help get you close, at least. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:RileySawyers.jpg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RileySawyers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How many times are you going to do this? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you work on yet another a new template?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would like to see a new and widely applied template.
Gist would be This Administrator is an Obvious Jerk
I think you would get much recognition for work on this project, which is much in keeping with Wikipedia ethos.
Even "jimbo" would maybe love your for this, and invite you for dinner or something.
Frankly is brilliant idea. I offer this freely for your own benefit.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The WTC Marriott damages

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was researching the WTC Marriott damages so I had decided to look on your page. It was very informative and useful but, I had found what could possibly be an error on your page. I had been reading: World Trade Center Past Present future. It copyright 2002, 2011 by White Star Publishers and it had stated that the Marriott World Trade Center had partially collapsed due to debris from the collapse of WTC 2 and WTC 1. It had shown photographic proof with a picture showing that a corner of the building had survived raising 3 stories high. Though it had major damage to the surviving part the structural frame has still survived and some windows and wall had survived too. Please contact me if you have any questions.--JMWpedia (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. First just let me clarify that, while one of the photos was taken by me, I did not write the article.
I'm not sure where the error is that you're referring to. My photo does show that 3 stories of the building remained standing, and the article states that "The collapse of the South Tower (2 WTC) split the hotel in half (such damage can briefly be seen in the documentary film 9/11), and the collapse of its twin destroyed the rest of the hotel aside from a small section (as seen on the picture) that was furthest from the north tower." That all goes right along with the book you are referencing. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of syndicated columnists for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of syndicated columnists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of syndicated columnists until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Uploading picture:

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How do I upload pictures and site reference? Obsessions28 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library  
You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 21:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Hey, I was wondering if you might be able to serve as a "lead" for the Reagan Library event. I did the initial legwork with the NARA folks there (I live close by), but I have commitments with my kids in the morning, so I need someone to be the experienced Wikipedian, and so far you get to be that by default. :) Please let me know. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do plan to be there on time, so if you want me to get there a bit early to check in and help set up, that's not a problem. I don't think I'll stay all the way to the end of the day, though. If that's okay, just email me the point of contact and I'll reach out. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Empower India Conference - Reason for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

HiKafziel,

I would like to know the reason for the deletion of this Page.. Many thousands had witnessed the event as per reports.

Huhshyeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy deletion because, as it was, it appeared to be an advertisement. The event had not even happened yet when the article was written (almost five years ago), so at that time there were not many thousands of witnesses. If you can re-write the article with a neutral tone and provide independent sources for the information, you are welcome to create a new version. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Resoration request

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to request a restoration of Ibrahim Sissoko, an article you deleted in 2008. The main complaint against the article was that it failed WP:NSPORT. This is no longer the case. With 22 appearances in the Porteguese Superliga (source), he now easily passes that guideline. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There's not much to restore. The whole article only consisted of a single paragraph, all of which is outdated and was mostly unsourced to begin with. But if you feel he is notable now, you are welcome to create a new article for him. The old deletion discussion will not count against it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

hi mr.kafziel

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

why did u delete ibrahim sissoko page? pls, create a page for samed yesil the german starlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.210.15 (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Military Historian of the Year

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Re-created James R. Arnold, previously deleted (2007).

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have recreated an article, a bare stub, for James R. Arnold of UCSD, who died Friday. It was deleted in 2007 on your watch, for lack of notability. I have little time to expand it, but I hope the reference I put in is sufficient to establish notability. He was certainly a very notable guy at UCSD when I was a grad student there in the late 1960s & early 1970s. Let me know if this is not sufficient to hold a place for it. Thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I can't guarantee it will never be nominated for deletion, but I wouldn't delete it myself without discussion. I'd say the connection to the Manhattan Project and having an asteroid named after him are at least assertions of notability. Cheers. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nomination of Planets of the Hyperion Cantos for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Planets of the Hyperion Cantos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planets of the Hyperion Cantos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sandstein  10:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi...I went to the Wiki page for the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive only to find that you had deleted it. I am its founder and director. What was wrong with the info and what do we need to have a Wiki page? Thank you. Nick Ribush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickribush (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That was deleted (four years ago) because it didn't make any claim of notability under our guidelines, which you can view here. If the site now meets those guidelines, it's possible that it could be re-created. As the site owner, you have a conflict of interest so you probably shouldn't be the one to do that. That's not to say that you should get someone else to log in and do it; what I mean is, it's a good rule of thumb that if your site is really notable, someone else would have already created an article about it. For instance, a Google employee didn't have to write the article about Google. If you wish to create the article again, be aware that it will be deleted again very quickly unless you can establish notability according to the guidelines I linked to above. I hope that helps. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...I'd have thought the site notable because it's the main source of teachings by Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche, both of whom are notable enough to have their own pages and were/are the spiritual heads of the FPMT, which also has a page, probably the largest Tibetan Buddhist organization in the world. Perhaps it's enough that those pages all link to LYWA website, but I'd have thought it would enhance Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature to have an LYWA listing. I take your point that nobody has done it in the past four years but I still don't know why you took it down...somebody put it there but I don't know what it said. So...it's against the rules for me to suggest to somebody else to do it? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickribush (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park  
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! —howcheng {chat} 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool, Version 5

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all :)

Just a quick update on what we've been working on:

  • The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
  • On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
  • Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).


Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Stoneschoolmarker.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stoneschoolmarker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Do you think deleting this photo will improve the encyclopedia? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Patrizia D'Addario listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Patrizia D'Addario. Since you had some involvement with the Patrizia D'Addario redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --Allen3 talk 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 release coming up - help us design a banner!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please correct your edit of my comments

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Like others, I prefer the numbered comments. Please correct your alteration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, you were the only one whose comment was numbered there, and it threw off the formatting. Now they are all numbered. Relax. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I am relaxed. Don't edit others comments, particularly at a discussion on Wikipedia policy. (The subsequent events at the page validated my wisdom and clarified your poor judgment there, as your comments here clarified your poor judgment here.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. I didn't edit your comment; I refactored its formatting for clarity. I notice you had no complaints when someone else later refactored the hundred other comments in the same way, since that time it happened to suit your taste.
I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from; ostensibly we are on the same side in that discussion. I see you've been blocked for disruption and incivility numerous times before, as recently as May, and if you want to keep editing now I suggest you stop the attacks here. There won't be a whole cycle of warnings, just this one. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

You wrote "As I warned." Could you please provide a link to this warning? Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section immediately above. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
There were no more attacks here post that warning. I assumed you provided a direct warning regarding conduct elsewhere, I see now that you did not. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
By "here", I didn't mean on my talk page, I meant on Wikipedia. He's been blocked 5 times previously for the same sort of thing; he doesn't get a whole fresh set of warnings, particularly since his latest attack on David Levy was almost identical to what he said to me above. He read the warning, chose to continue attacking other users, and is now blocked. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
See, I was content to just leave it, but now you are being dishonest. If you meant "here" to not mean "here" this time, when you use "here" AT THE VERY TOP OF THIS PAGE ("Note: This page is sometimes semi-protected. If you are an IP editor or have a new account, it's possible you won't be able to post a message here(emph mine)." you apparently don't mean "here," rather you mean "here." Which "here," do you mean? Apparently whatever here makes you right at that second - this kind of ass-covery over something as small as here has made me determine you are not trustworthy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That's nonsense. One is a template, one is a comment made in a discussion. Incivility doesn't cease to exist just because it's not on my talk page. Quite the opposite, in fact: I am much more likely to ignore insults toward me than toward others. This is the first block I've made in more than a year, and it was much needed. Evidently I am not the only admin who thinks so.[21] Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
More dishonesty. The message at the top of your page was not a template - you wrote it by hand here (and by here, I don't mean on your talk page, or on Wikipedia, but rather in the diff that I linked to you, to avoid your confusion over the word "here.") Do I really need to go through your editing history and find you using "here," to refer to specific pages as opposed to Wikipedia? Really? Are you that unwilling to admit you are wrong? If you make me do more work on this ridiculous "here," issue as opposed to just owning up to your obvious error, I don't even know. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hand made templates are still templates. It is boilerplate that has been at the top of this page for years, and refers directly to this page.
I feel like maybe you think I don't remember you—from all your sockpuppetry and eventual user page deletions all those years ago—but I remember you just fine. Trust me or don't trust me, I don't care; I certainly don't trust you, and fortunately I don't serve at your pleasure. If you have a problem with the block, there are venues for that; if you have a problem with me, it's duly noted. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the more appropriate statement is that I don't hold grudges (or honestly remember bit players in harassment campaigns - it took me forever to figure out that you were the one who fell for SirIssacBrock) for 6 years, but you apparently do. Good bye. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Bye. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel, have you read WP:REFACTOR? If so, you might have overlooked an important part: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". You might also have missed that KW initially posted a more polite message, which was reverted without explanation (edit summary "no"). KW's comment was unfortunate, but under the circumstances certainly does not warrant anywhere near a two-week block. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "no" was a poor choice. Still doesn't excuse it. Not the first time he's been blocked for this stuff. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the content of the message, in which I was accused of "editing others' comments" and asked to restore broken formatting on the basis that Kiefer is "tired of the fundamentalist Christians being scared of being numbered by The Beast", I'd say that "No." was a rather restrained and civil response. —David Levy 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nikkimaria:
Editors are given significant latitude regarding their messages' content, but they aren't entitled to break a discussion's formatting (thereby creating accessibility issues, particularly for users of screen readers). Kiefer is insisting upon having his comment numbered, apparently because he accidentally formatted it that way when posting it and objects to any and all third-party refactoring of his messages (which he immediately treated as vandalism). This is disruptive.
However, I didn't even single out his comment; I manually restored the discussion's original formatting after someone added numbering to all of the "support" and "oppose" messages (which had been discussed without leading to consensus, though I assume that the editor was unaware of that). For this, I received a complaint about "editing others' comments" and "fundamentalist Christians being scared of being numbered by The Beast" (?!).
Kiefer then renumbered his comment, and I didn't revert (and still haven't). It breaks the formatting, but I wanted to avoid an edit war. —David Levy 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thank you.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Minisink

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

BTW, I find your "complaint department take a number" as your signature component indicating your talk page to be a little offensive and smug.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)   Hello. You have a new message at User talk:ColonelHenry's talk page. RE: Minisink.

It's an old joke. If anyone ever posted something on my page that wasn't a complaint, it wouldn't be so apt. Thanks for keeping the streak going!
You have to have a sense of humor around here, man. It's supposed to be fun! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page. ColonelHenry (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC) (reply no 2)

Article Feedback newsletter

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all!

So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the #wikimedia-office connect channel, and another at 01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kafziel/archive7&oldid=1144592641"