User talk:Kafziel/archive6

Your offer

I've just replied affirmatively to Craigy144 (talk · contribs); if you want to work out a co-nom with him, go ahead. I'll tackle Popolopen tomorrow. I very much appreciate the expression of confidence. Choess (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Talk to you soon. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel. Despite rushing in first, I don't suppose I could pawn-off the writing of the RfA on to you? Despite not having done one before, I imagine I'll be rubbish at it, and don't really know where to start (Choess' achievments here should help). However, if you'd rather not, I'll give it a shot. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. I'll do my best to get it going Thursday afternoon (Pacific time). I'll keep you posted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've put my 2 pence worth in too. Craigy (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Accepted and questions answered. Regardless of the outcome, I've very much honored by the expression of trust from both of you. Choess (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Undoing edits for Strickland Gillilan

You undid my edit "plays" -> "lays" in the poem "The Reading Mother".

webster.com defines lay:

Main Entry: 4lay Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French lai Date: 13th century 1 : a simple narrative poem : ballad

Perhaps YOUR mother read you PLAYS (but I really doubt it), but MY mother read me LAYS!

You are entitled to leave the entry in wikipedia incorrect, or you can change it back.

-- Evan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.249.70 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. When I first wrote the article it had the right wording [1] and evidently someone else changed it at some point. I should have looked at the edit more closely. I've reverted myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

user removing delete tag instead of responding with hold

Hi there,

I write here because you are one of three admins to have previously enforced a delete on the "bewelcome" article. I flagged it as db-spam -- although db-club seems suiltable as well -- as it's a PR piece and still doesn't meet notability guidelines, and comparing 4,000 members to the 500,000 membership base of the large established sites kind of speaks to itself. Anyway, the page owner has come and deleted that tag instead of using the hold mechanism. I'm not going to engage in an edit war, so I wonder if you could investigate. Appreciated. Here is the diff where he removed the tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BeWelcome&diff=233726299&oldid=233722747 and here is the log of previous deletes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=BeWelcome --121.44.250.188 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. User warned and article sent to AfD. If you have an account, you may want to sign in and comment there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! - Francis Tyers · 17:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks. i added there but anonymously. Not sure if that fails to meet a requirement. Please remove my contributions to the delete arguments if so, and accept my apologies in advance. --121.44.250.188 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

claiming the above as my comment. registered in case needed for contributions there. --Casualwik (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for your RfA nomination. To be honest, the main effect has been for me to treat it as an editor review, but I'm very grateful for the token of your respect. See you around the Hudson Highlands articles. Choess (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to do it and I'm glad it worked out. It certainly can't hurt to have the tools there when you need them, even if it's rare. Good edits to Popolopen, by the way. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent 3RR closure

Please note that reverts do not have to be the same to be picked up under 3RR. Any four reverts will count. From WP:3RR: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether or not the same material is involved." Just letting you know for future reference.

If replying, please reply on my talk page or use {{talkback}}, as I do not watch others' talk pages as a rule. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess maybe I could have explained my reasoning better. He wasn't reverting to a certain version; there were tons of other editors throughout the day that he didn't revert, so it wasn't the same version each time. He's well within his rights to make more than three changes per article per day, so it comes down to what constitutes a "revert". Every edit changes something somebody else wrote at some point in time, and often to some "older version". I think intent plays a big role in determining what's okay. Otherwise we could just have a 3RR bot.

Edit warring connotes aggressive behavior, which I don't get from a series of completely unrelated edits. If all those different reverts had the end result of maintaining the same version that would be 3RR, but that wasn't the case there. If he had removed the same stuff without the (admittedly annoying) edit summary calling it a revert, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I hate you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.35.23.81 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. So do I. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons move...

Hmm The Commons Helper bot SHOULD have moved the entire history. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I don't really use the Commons much, and I've never used the bot. But whatever the glitch was, the history will need to be fixed before the Wikipedia version of the file can be deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR Closure

I commented on your closure of my 3RR report. As another editor noted above, the reverts do nto have to be about the same content. Lulu reverted 4 times, not any of them were vandalism, and the article is under probation for edit warring. CENSEI (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WRONG

Do you NOT pay attention when you read? I have provided two articles which prove that the first kidnapped victim in 1990 was tortured but NOT killed. The second victim was kidnapped in 1995 and was NEVER found. Who knows where his body is.

Here is one of the two articles. Please learn how to read before you PWN so called vandals.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99feb25/world.htm#6

I'm surprised Dhinsa's page is on your watchlist. I had never even heard of the guy until I saw him on an episode of The FBI Files a few months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.230.117 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I got your warning.

Dear Kafziel:

I will keep in mind to be respectful of other people's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsessions28 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some help here.

Hello. I recently edited on the Republic of China article and there is some user named "Pyl" referring my edits as "vandalism." Here's what I edited, to save you some time as shown below: 1. Edit summary: Changed "Republic of China" into "Taiwan" Ma Ying-jeou, President of the Republic of China. replaced to Ma Ying-jeou, President of Taiwan.

2. Edit Summary: Removed Image:ROC Administrative and Claims.jpg Constitutional administrative division of the Republic of China.

Reason: This appears to be definite misinformation. Mongolia is Mongolia. Taiwan (ROC, if you wish to call) does not have control over Mongolia.

Prowikipedians (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to be writing on your page while you are not involved in this matter. However, I feel that I have been misrepresented here by a story wasn't completely told.

The above edits were marked "Minor", and the reasons given by Prowikipedians for the above edits were "removed minor vandalism" or "reword awk. sentence". I have assumed good faith, but no reasonable person would believe that these were geninue reasons for the edits. I said this to Prowikipedians earlier but I was not given a reply.--Pyl (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Prowik, don't lie to me about the edit summaries you used; I can see for myself that Pyl is correct. You misrepresented your edits and based on your past performance I am sure it was intentional. You know what you did was not acceptable—I have no doubt about that—and if it leads to a block it will be deserved. Truth be told, it's starting to look like you need to be banned from editing all Asia-related articles. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I believe that it was due to a fact that I over-simplified or mis-worded what I edited, which can be seen by the edit I made | here. Also, I just checked my edits, and it appeared that I accidentally deleted a few paragraphs of text somewhere near the area where I replaced “Ma Ying Jo...Republic of China” with “Ma Ying Jo...Taiwan” as seen | here. The edit summaries I provided in the conversation above was a brief discription of what I did. Sorry if that had bothered you. I am going on a 'wikibreak' for a few more days/weeks. But can someone here explain to me why Taiwan (ROC) is claiming control over places such as Tibet, Mongolia, etc? Or was it a simplification from “People's Republic of China (Mainland)” into “Republic of China?” It can be very misleading, no? Prowikipedians (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I may tend to write different that what I think, but really wasn't intentional. Was miswording and misunderstanding. Sorry. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. | Discussion of Image_talk:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.jpg Prowikipedians (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, I think this has been resolved. Cheers. Prowikipedians (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated anger

You are a horrible representation of an editor, you have an agressive slanderous nature, you should be aware before you call people names and implicate them in fraudulent editing that pershaps you should check. Who are you. Mkae sure you leave your name and number. P.S. Remove your picture, you look too much like Sadam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I piss people off on a daily basis, so you'll need to be more specific. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Photographer's Barnstar

Thank you for that!!

)

Pratheepps (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Iluvteletubbies

Hi. I noticed you indef blocked Iluvteletubbies, then unblocked him to "second chance" him. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that the report you responded to was actually the second one for him today by two different editors. In my earlier report, I noted that he is continuously refactoring talk pages, despite numerous warnings, has performing moved vandalism of talk pages and an AfD, has done some vandalism on articles, etc. He has also immediately recreating his non-sense redirects when they are CSDed. I think he's already had lots of chances, and am hoping you'll reconsider leaving him completely unblocked.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Although some of his contribs are pretty disruptive at first glance, I think at least some of them are harmless and some of them (such as the move of "Cantonese swearing" to "Cantonese profanity") are actually helpful. To be honest, it seems to me like he's received more warnings than he actually deserves. I'm certainly willing to review it again, though. Can you provide me with diffs of some edits you feel are blatant vandalism? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from the talk page refactoring, I strongly suspect this guy may be yet another sock of User:BambiFan101 (also casually known as the Disney vandal), as such edits were one of his signatures, but some that are blatant to me:

• On Po (disambiguation): [2][3][4][5][6]
• On Anti-Barney humor, continues making edits like this: [7] with copyrighted lyrics and his own opinions, despite numerous reverts and warnings (which is also basically slow edit warring)
• And his refactoring of other people's talk page comments: Talk:DipsyTalk:Babe: A Pig in the City, Talk:Cinderella_III:_A_Twist_in_Time, Talk:Barney & Friends, Talk:Anti-Barney humor, Talk:Po (disambiguation)

Hope that helps...there are a lot more instances on the talk page stuff, those are just some of the recent/biggest where he has removed one more discussions all together.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some of those examples (like the talk page changes and the OR additions to the Barney article) are more of a case of not understanding the rules. I don't think they're malicious, just misguided. But I will keep an eye on him now, and if it doesn't improve immediately then I'll re-block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just a quick note but it seems he is still causing trouble at the Teletubbies article, and earlier he deliberately changed to using his IP address to do some edits (self admitted under claim he "forgot" to log in, except by time stamps he obviously logged in to answer, logged out, then logged in again)[8]. While under the IP, he kept attempting to do the same edits to Charlotte's Web (1973 film) that he received numerous warnings on at Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure, including attempting to restore a badly written, earlier version of the plot, continuing to reorder the cast list to some seemingly random order, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another note, he is once again refactoring talk pages[9] and attempting to restore old versions of articles[10]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Anpersonalaccount

I lodged a formal complaint before as I wasn't aware of the occurrences on wp: 3RR. Thank you for your administrative actions. JSR (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience: He keeps talking. Don't bother too much he will have the last word no matter what. Of course, he talks only on 'behavior' etc. and never on irrelevant things like books, citations, author-qualifications, or quotes. That's when he just gets 'angry'. JSR (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He just reverted me again and told me to Go away! JSR (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, just let him blank it if he wants. Like you said, don't bother. We'll see how things go after the block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Prowikipedians updates!

Hello, Kafziel. Before you freak out or something. Here's a brief summary on what I have done recently:

• Liberation_Through_Hearing_During_the_Intermediate_State has been moved from Bardo Thodol, reason using official and true title.

(Provided reason: (Great Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State is the official and true title, according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/tibetan_2.shtml.))

• Ignoring all rules, I removed an inappropiate link (http://www.adherents.com) as being cited as a resource from article Buddhism. You may consider this 3RR, which is in violation of Wikipedia's policies, however, using Wikipedia's "Ignore all rules," I removed the link since it has nothing to do with the article. Was irrelevant to Buddhism and was not verifiable.

In gen: There was this user (Nat Krause) that made the paper and web links together. I removed the weblink from article Buddhism.

Prowikipedians (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Prowikipedians (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sikh Rajputs

Hello there. Since you were over-seeing the revert-warring episode on this article page, I thought I'll share this with you. After seeing this revision, I was laughing at the irrelevant personalized addition to the article's talk page. I'm not quite sure how that needs to be handled. Another editor has removed it now, but I was hoping to consult you for advice. Thanks in anticipation. Mspraveen (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the above matter. I'd also like to bring this revision to your attention. Hey, btw, please tell me if I'm over-reporting these instances to you. If you'd like me to go to ANI instead of bumping into you all the time, I can certainly do so. Let me continue what I began a few sentences earlier. Even before the editor's contentious edits (contentions not just by me, but by another editor as well) on Sikh Rajputs were resolved, he inserts related text into Mair Rajputs. What he contends in his edit summaries or messages on the talk pages is that he'll add the information from what he's read somewhere. When asked to cite his statements, he says it is not his Ph.D thesis and someone over time will come and tag the references along (see Talk:Sikh Rajputs or Sikh Rajputs history pages). I felt his thoughts to be bloggish and his constant attempts to insert text does not augur well, IMO. I don't want to revert and write about it in the talk page about it, because I'm pretty sure he'll revert me into it without a proper rationale and discussion. I believe in contributing to mainspace and other misc. activities. I don't really like wikilawyering or discussing these, but I can't help see such contentious edits. Thought I could share my thoughts here. Mspraveen (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've written a very few articles related to India and Sikhism, but for I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand all the subtleties. If you feel the material is inappropriate, you can remove it. You have WP:V behind you. Just don't edit war over it - if you can't solve it after 1 or 2 reverts, leave the article as it is and seek official dispute resolution.

An edit war with that editor is unlikely at this point, because if he undoes your edits after his block he will be blocked again. But there's always the possibility of sockpuppets or anonymous editing, so in that case just avoid the edit war and go to WP:ANI or get help at WP:SIKH instead. I hope that helps. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Yes, I won't edit-war. It was just a bad day at office that got me frustrated into revert-warring. The article's content now has seen at least two more editors voicing their concerns about its verifiability. I've AfD'ed it at present due to concerns by three editors including me, and with that I hope for a broader consensus from WP:SIKH, WP:India and other editors in general. Mspraveen (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whay you want to delet artical Sikh Rajput. what kind of verification you need ?, there is lot's of sikh rajput's, my whole family is a sikh, and we praud we a sikh rajput. Many rajput complitly adopt sikhisam as a religon. There is lot's of information available in Adampur Doaba Gazetteers, regarding Droli kalan. For more, visit http://sikhrajput.com/ http://sikhrajput.com/index.php/section:506a7/template:nature http://sikhrajput.com/index.php/section:8ffd6/template:nature there is lot's of Sikh Rajput's village in Punjab , haryana, Himachal pardesh & Jammu and Kashmir. Give me reply, whay you want to block me, have you enought resion to mark disputed or delet this artical ?. Sikh Rajput 09:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Sukhdev Singh Minhas talk

X-American_lists

Please comment: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_to_Remove_List_of_X-American_lists.Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bob Enyart

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bob Enyart, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Enyart. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mksmothers (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod, Prod, Prod, don't you just love them?

From WP:ANI This is why PROD is a worthless waste of time, and everyone should just take the extra 30 seconds to make a proper AfD report. PROD is just a way of giving an article an extra few days on Wikipedia before the author removes the tag and it ends up having to go through AfD anyway. No admin action needed here.

Coulnd't agree more with this, and i suggest we prod the prod template some day. To bad so many users over at WP:AFD deem placing an AFD template on a page that isn't CSD-able b(ut doesn't stand a real chance on an AFD ) a crime against editing time. Funnt how prod templates tend to cause so much extra work since you have to keep an eye on them if they are not removed. Not even mentioning the issue that placing a PROD at the articles creation time is apparently polite while an AFD template is WP:Bite/WP:AGF. A well, enough about this. Now where can i request a policy change on those things? ;) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried PROD out for about a week back when it was first proposed, and it only took people about half that time to figure out how to take advantage of it. It's been pointless since day 3 or 4, but somehow managed to become policy in spite of itself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra 30 seconds? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

About that. If you put a prod tag on an article, you must have thought of some reason for doing it. The only difference between PROD and AFD is clicking on "preloaded debate" and typing that reason up. That should take about 30 seconds, since you already know what to write because you did your homework before you placed the tag, just as you should with PROD. So once that's done, presto! You've just started a useful discussion instead of giving people a way to game the system for five days. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

? In my experience, it takes 5-10 minutes to go through the whole hassle-laden process of an AfD. I'm told it might go faster if I had Twinkle, but that's not practical.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in total it might take that long or longer... but in reality, so does a PROD. A PROD tag shouldn't be placed on an article unless due diligence is done first—determining what guidelines/policies it fails to meet, checking for reliable sources, that sort of thing—so the only difference is typing the AfD and transcluding it. Assuming you know your reasoning for wanting it deleted (and assuming you're not a hunt-and-peck typist) it certainly doesn't need to take more than a minute at most. Of course, some AfD statements are more elaborate than others, but they don't need to be. Even a one-sentence "fails WP:BIO" nom is better than a PROD tag.

For instance, in the current ANI case, all you'd need to do is place the afd tag (same amount of time as placing a prod tag), click the preloaded debate button that's right there in the tag, and on the next page just type "Fails WP:MOVIE" as your reason. And that's it. Someone will come along and change the category to "M", other people can debate (or not) as they please. 30 seconds and your obligation is complete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

PRODs *do* work for unattended articles. Oftentimes the article creator is long gone, or only comes by every few weeks, so these PRODs often succeed. This is certainly less work for the rest of us than AfD. A PROD doesn't have to be relisted if no-one comments, unlike an AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

An AfD doesn't have to be relisted, either. It's become customary, but the policy doesn't require it. The nominator's statement can be enough to close an AfD. If nobody has an argument to the contrary (just like prod) then I'm fine with closing as delete. Plus, a decision made at AfD is a more binding precedent; speedy deletions and PRODs can be overturned on a whim, whereas an article recreated after an afd can be deleted on sight. Finally, starting an AfD means you don't even need to watch the article anymore, because removing an AfD tag will be reverted as vandalism. There's simply no down side to it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Another point of view..... prod does have it's purpose. It's great for getting rid of what appears to be cruft but you aren't 100% sure of. Good examples are articles dealing with radio hosts and with podcasts are a good example. They tend to spawn like rabbits as fans create them (badly) and then never update them. A few are worth keeping so CSD is too harsh, but there are so many to consider that AFD would just waste a lot of people's time. In recent sweeps through the podcast and radio host categories, 90% of the prods went uncontested, the rest went to AFD. Overall admins and editors spent less time, there were fewer pointless arguments and things still got cleaned up.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Expired prod" isn't a valid reason for deletion anyway, so the article still needs to meet CSD criteria. Speedy is better because a) if tagged quickly, there's a decent chance the author will still be around and have a chance to improve it, and b) if the article is inappropriate, we shouldn't have it sitting around for days on end. Speedy deletion isn't supposed to be harsh; people can be rude and abusive with it, but that goes for PROD as well. I know that the main appeal of PROD is that there's a good chance no one will notice until it's too late, but back-door deletions aren't good at all in my book. People shouldn't have their articles deleted just because they didn't check in for a few days, and if there's a valid reason to delete it then it should either be done quickly (CSD) or authoritatively (AFD). PROD is neither. It takes as long as AFD but isn't binding at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Made my day

Your "Congratulations" blocking of User:Thokkoht made my day, thank you. Improbcat (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. :) Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

i deserve an award

i duno what for but i do alot of protecting pages mainly of my intrest --Cmedinger (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rescue Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, it means a lot to have time spent acknowledged. I couldn't care less about the subject of the article in question, but the partisan bickering and POV nonsense in that AFD was really irritating me so I rewrote the article with some basic biographic info on the subject from available press coverage.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I had never even heard of the guy before I responded to a report at the Admin's noticeboard. Don't care about him at all, but those are the most important articles to look out for because they can fall through the cracks so easily. Anyway, thanks for the work. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Rajputs

Thank you for your help on this article and I think your decision to keep the article was a fair one (albeit contentious lol). Can I take you up on your offer to work on this article as a watch etc for a while? user:Atulnischal seems to be using Wikipedia as a platform for communal propoganda from certain RSS elements it appears, and it would be good to have the neutral influence of an admin over this area.

Thanks again Kafziel --Shanti bhai (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sig

Completely unrelated to any discussions we are in, just wanted to say I like your sig. --mboverload@ 06:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, your block message here is awesome per everyone in the IRC channel. --mboverload@ 06:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah, that's a popular one. It started out as a parody of another admin's overly-friendly block message, but I think at this point mine is more well-known than hers ever was. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE use that block message on [11] here. He needs a vacation. --mboverload@ 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who blocked him initially, I'm waiting for another admin to come and review the block. I don't think it will be a problem when they have a look at the lovely message he left for us. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected user page

You recently protected User Talk:RhoLyokoWarrior [12]. Would you please place {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=RhoLyokoWarrior}} on the talk page? Just going thru the motions. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

While I realize you just reblocked him and have protected his talk page to prevent further disruption, the fact that you haven't issued an indefinite block speaks volumes about you. Maybe with some guidance Onelifefreak2007 can turn into a productive editor... I doubt it, but it's nice that you're giving him another chance. Any overly passionate but productive editor should be lucky to run into an administrator like you. Well done... and now, I'm off to visit Tivo who has been saving the season premiere of Heroes for me. AniMate 07:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Your patience is amazing, and your willingness to give second, third, and even fourth chances is honorable. The spirit of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, is alive and well in you. Please, keep believing in problematic editors that some of us would have given up on. AniMate 07:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll admit my faith and patience are wearing thin on this one, but hopefully a week off will help get him on track. It's amazing how a few days away can put things in perspective. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For help

Hello! The administor VS asked me to note to other Admins. It happened that I found you and I invite you help to solve the dispute/problem about the article Gaogouli County if you are interested and have time. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=240660700. Thanks! -Dicting (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I think that situation is a little over my head. I can't really tell what the issue is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Krugerrand

I'm really, honestly, dismayed by what you're saying at ANI. Under your contention, any vandal can blank anything that doesn't have a source, and vandal hunters can't restore it without having to track down sources. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think you're misunderstanding me. You can re-add the information. Removing it wasn't vandalism, though, so you should be careful about edit warring over it. And if you don't add some sources that same guy is going to remove it again in another day or two, and at that point he'd probably be more within his rights to do so. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing it on this particular article may not be vandalism, but what happens the next time I encounter a blanked section in some other article? Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it back in, and ask the user to explain their reason for removing it. If they do, whether in an edit summary or on their talk page, it's probably good-faith-ish. If they ignore you and do it again, you're probably safe to treat it as vandalism. You just have to judge each case on its own merits. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory. I don't seem to have ever worked on that article. Did I comment on a related AfD or something? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I found it. I don't really have an opinion about either of the articles—I was just there for dispute resolution—but thanks for the notice anyway. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis

Khoikhoi has just reverted you while the article was protected. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Opis

My bad, I hadn't noticed the reprotection, and after I made the revert I went out for a bit. However, I have to say that I strongly disagree with what has just occured. I've left a comment at AN/I. Khoikhoi 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The disruptive editor CreazySuit has been blocked. Jehochman has proposed unprotecting the article so that the dispute can be resolved (hopefully in a calmer atmosphere). As the protecting admin, your view would be appreciated - please see WP:AN/I#Arbitration please. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for all the trouble this article has caused... -- ChrisO (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be able to (sort of) help. Have fun storming the castle! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kevin Wu

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kevin Wu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Suntag ☼ 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:RentAWreckLogo.gif)

You've uploaded Image:Image:RentAWreckLogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

User talk:Mksmothers

Mksmothers is insisting that you agree to the {{2nd chance}} agreement I've offered, as he's apparently convinced you have a personal vendetta against him (how original). It is getting to the point, however, where I'm beginning to wonder if he's stalling for time, especially if you just caught one of his sockpuppets today. If he does agree to finally do this, that will be taken into consideration. Anyway, if you could drop a note on his page that you're not "out to get him", we might finally be able to get that over with. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been away; that in itself should demonstrate that I wasn't out to get him. But it looks like the problem is solved for now, anyway. Others have agreed to keep him blocked, and he's agreed to use block-evading sockpuppets. Everybody's happy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RosieHamlin.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpupeter?

Hello!

Can you show me the evidence you have against this user User:Mksmothers? Because from what i see, i see no reports, no suspected sock puppets... Care to show me? Thanks :) --creaɯy!^Talk 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I put a link to one of his sockpuppets on his talk page. Check the history of his userpage.

I suppose it doesn't matter at this point - he's admitted it now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Stockbridge Militia

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stockbridge Militia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 22:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Onelifefreak2007

Apparently, your block on him/her isn't working as well as it should be. He/she/it has been very busy on the Lynyrd Skynyrd article, if you want to go take a look. Maybe a permanent block for this bozo is in order? BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, you should probably unprotect his talk page. It certainly would make getting him to communicate and not edit war much easier. AniMate 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, User:72.81.208.215 and I are edit warring at the Ahmed Deedat-page. Could you see if you can straighten this out?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And my edits are reversed again by an anonymous user, and again without any discussion on the talk-page. I asked on his user-page for a clarification. Shall we say we will wait till tuesday before we take action?Jeff5102 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And the User:IslamForEver1 is edit-warring again at the Ahmed Deedat-page. I gave some explanations on the talk-page why I made some changes, but User:IslamForEver1 is just reverting the article into a version only he appears to like. I am getting tired of it.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him. If you're getting tired of it, take it off your watchlist and edit somewhere else. Another user will fix it eventually. I'd love to be able to say we're all important cogs in a big machine, but in reality most of us are redundant; there's always someone else out there willing to step in to fill the void. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Kafziel. You have new messages at Hello Control's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I edited somewhere else: at the Antony Flew-page. Anyway, that page attracted an edit-war as well. A user called User:Khamosh is reverting everything that he doesn't like: he calls that vandalism. I guess I'd better start improving the tennis-sections.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have many articles that are lacking context.

Hi Kafziel. I have been on Wikipedia lately, using the random page link. I have discovered that Wikipedia seems to have many articles that are lacking context and added a few speedy deletion tags for several articles that were very short (1 sentence or a few sentences with a list of track songs). Have I done something wrong? Please tell me according to your Wikipedia experience. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignore my statement. I just discussed the issue with user TexasAndroid about tags. Seems that I made a mistake. Sorry. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:PLAUT CORP, User:Jojoplaut, User: Plaut Inc + 2 IPs

Hi Kafziel, while reverting some vandalism by the newly-created User:PLAUT CORP, I came across your July blocks of User:Jojoplaut [13] and User:Plaut Inc [14]. The three are obviously one and the same (see for example these diffs [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]). There are two IPs also adding the same stuff about the non-existent Plaut Inc - Special:Contributions/76.126.202.40 and Special:Contributions/4.249.57.176. I was going to go first to RFCU but then noticed the line about unacceptable requests "Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits - Block, no checkuser needed" so I thought I'd bring it to your attention instead. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "I told you so" to the other admin who unblocked him back in July. We went round and round over it back then. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We all support the idea of AGF, but sometimes it turns out to be the wrong call. Plaut was along a few hours back reverting my reversions. See Special:Contributions/76.126.202.40. Ah well :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hudson Bay

Hi Kafziel, I've responded at my talk page. Please do have a look at Hudson Bay again. Thanks for your attention to what appears to be a long-standing issue. An apparent rationale was provided recently by one of the blocked guises: [21]. JNW (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this, and to reverting vandalism to my talk page! Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Geoff Simpson article

Hello, I am the one who reported User:Truthteller47th's BLP vandalism at Geoff Simpson, and I am having another problem with the same article.

The main controversy has been about Geoff Simpsons' arrest for assault earlier this year, which I believe should be included in the article, per WP:WELLKNOWN. The now-blocked UserTruthteller47th and User:Cumulus Clouds seemed to be on a quest to keep that incident out of the article, and now User:Cumulus Clouds has accused me of POV-pushing and threatened me with being blocked for 3RR. Now I am accused of being a "Republican operative." Of course, I totally disagree with what he is saying, so I am asking you for a third opinion in this matter. I would really appreciate it. --HoboJones (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• You will have a tough time linking me to the blocked account, but good luck. As I've said before, the burden falls entirely on you to find enough sources to flesh out the entire incident, instead of selectively choosing only the information you feel will help defame Simpson ahead of the election. Again, dedicating half the article space to a minor incident in which Simpson was later exonerated (though making no mention of that) is a violation of both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Excluding the conclusion of the case would make it appear as if the charges had merit, which they do not, and this is therefore a blatant BLP violation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

CC: Didn't accuse you of being a SockPuppet. Check the Simpson talk page for new language. --HoboJones (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guys - my time on Wiki is very limited for the next several weeks, and I just don't have the time to deal with this right now. I will say that BLP is not particularly relevant to this dispute and it probably won't protect either of you in terms of 3RR. I suggest getting a third opinion, or seeking other dispute resolution if necessary. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Goshen, NY article

Thought I'd brighten your day with some 'non' vandalizing edits to the Goshen article. It is no longer in Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements. Scytheml (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to see something positive for a change. Thanks for that! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Atulsnischal

Just to let you know I unblocked his account for a trial period. See User_talk:Atulsnischal David D. (Talk) 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have had a new unknown and impartial Administrator had taken this decision, I have complained several times before that on previous occasions David D. has been stalking my contributions for 2 years and trying to bully me in doing what he thinks right, he has also censored vast text from several articles when only language needed to be be changed a bit, as I had pasted the same paragraph where all it applied. I have difficulty typing as i dont know keyboarding so it takes a lot of time for me to type with two fingers. I hope there will be no tracking and bullying and politics involved with this user.

A trial period?????? if you unblock somebody you dont start stalking them i hope....... it is best for unknown admins or impartial admins to take these decisions.... and every situation shuld be dealt with individually.

frankly i am worried so i just shared my feelings.

best wishes all

Atulsnischal (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're complaining that he unblocked you? It is common practice for admins to keep an eye on users they unblock. And if you're looking for a clean slate, posting gratuitous complaints like this certainly isn't the way to go.

I suggest you get back to editing. If you can't let past grudges go, you'll be blocked again in no time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just bizarre. The term stalking is all in the eye of the beholder, i guess? For reference he got annoyed when I and several users rewrote his version of genetic pollution. This is not personal and never has been. I guess consensus is in the eye of the beholder too.

Further, I was hoping this clean start might get him into a more positive editing cycle, as opposed to this User_talk:99.235.98.169 which is his most recent IP. Atulsnischal!, stop picking fights an start collaborating. David D. (Talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre indeed. Right after I removed his long-winded rant mass-posted to several project talk pages without even being relevant, he started the "you're stalking me" comments again. His recent edits does not show any improvement, rather the religion-oriented calls-to-actions continue. And any examination of articles edited by him brings the "stalking" rant. (Seems that I got into his sights when I voted for deletion of one of his mailing-list articles). I think the unblock was premature and should be re-examined. --Ragib (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet issue....

Hi Kafziel,

I am the writer of the Janjua article and have recently come across a sock puppet User:History Sleuth who appears to be arguing on the Janjua talkpage exclusively, whilst also stirring up trouble on the Kshatriya page (where I saw you advising another user KhatriNYC for his edits) asking all groups to provide citations, yet allows his other real account of User:Internet Scholar (strangely similar names...) to post up misleading references re the Saini group (none of the references state that Saini are a Kshatriya group (warrior caste). Thus, using another account for stirring up controversy whilst keeping his actual account clean.

I'm not too bothered about that, but he is arguing on the Janjua talkpage treating it like a forum and issue contempt at the history of a famousn tribe who converted to Islam in the 13th century. He hasn't contributed to the article, even though his points are already incoporated into the article (i.e. Many Rajputs clans converted for either financial reasons, or a real change of belief) and all references are fully sourced.

Yet user:Internet Scholar is arguing non relevant issues on this talk page. Can you possibly intervene and stop this getting out of hand?

Thanks for your anticipated help.--~Raja~ (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny template

I encountered one of your recent blocks. I really enjoyed your blocking template! "you've won yourself a permanent vacation from Wikipedia! Isn't that exciting?" I'm giggling! Royalbroil 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

An article on Wikipedia I stumbled upon...

Hi, Kafziel. I recently found this article on Wikipedia. Is it too short? Or is this type of article subject for deletion? Prowikipedians (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero

It's worth pointing out that that user, in addition to getting it totally wrong about citations, as you pointed out; also has some pretty creative ideas about what constitutes a reliable source. As you could see on his talk page, he regards his own interpretation of the constitution as reliable, and a host of media sources that wikipedia would recognize, and which contradict his interpretation, as unreliable. Read that section where I debated him on that topic, if you want some amusement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A Question

Why you erased my latest edit on mother article? I don't want to promotion, it is a mother photo with her son, what the meaning of your promotion to me? It is really a fool reason from you. By the way you just promotion yourself about your life on your user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:A Question

I'm not promotion about myself or my mother. I want to show people about the real mother with her child, don't only a photo like a migrant mother. So, what do you think about self promotion it is very unacceptable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on 201.92.171.100

Just curious, but why did you block 201.92.171.100 (talk · contribs). As I noted [22] on the AIV report, the IP had been inappropriately warned, and more importantly, the IP's four most recent edits were reverting a misuse ([23], [24], [25], [26]) of Huggle (with the editor who was reverting this IP admitting [27] he made a mistake). --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The warning didn't seem improper to me (still doesn't) but I did misread this edit. My mistake - the IP is now unblocked. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't really see why improper use of Huggle by one user excuses another user violating 3RR. I'm not going to re-block, of course, especially since you protected the article, but I don't think it would have been out of line to block both of them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that the Huggle reverts by HexaChord (talk · contribs) were highly inappropriate, but how can we really blame the IP when no one ever even tried to communicate to the user? It appears that Treelo (talk · contribs) reverted the IP [28] and slapped a level-four vandalism warning [29] on the IP's talk page when a {{uw-unsourced1}} or {{uw-unsourced2}} would have been much more appropriate. Then the IP got reverted five more times without either of the editors making any effort to communicate why they were reverting the IP. To me, this looks like an IP trying to make good faith edits, but getting bitten in return. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well, I guess it's all status quo now. Thanks again for letting me know. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries; glad I could be of service! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Dunderberg Mountain

On 26 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dunderberg Mountain, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Nice job! We needed that one ... didn't know you were back in the area!

I have been trying, though, for a long time to be down on the Bear Mountain Highway in the morning when the sun isn't behind the mountain so I could get that really awesome view of it. And with the leaves up. But that pic is better than nothing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even realize it had been put up for DYK until this afternoon.

I've been back in NY for a while, and figured I'd take a few pics while I'm here. Wish I could have made it up West Mountain when the leaves were nice, but I didn't quite get there. I'm probably hiking Dunderberg on Sunday morning so maybe I'll get some more pics on by early next week, and then I'll be heading back to California... I think I've had enough cold for this year! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

MedCab - Mother

Hiya. I looked at the case page and was thinking of picking it up, but you have stated that you don't wish to participate in mediation. Might I prevail upon you to change your mind? Perhaps having someone facilitate a discussion (I haven't read the article or the article talk so I don't form any preconceptions) can help resolve the dispute? Your choice of course! //roux   10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a dispute. It's a discussion. There hasn't been a single edit made to the article since David's first edit three days ago. Mediation is vastly premature; what he really wants is a third opinion... a different third opinion from the one Baseball Bugs already gave him, since he didn't like that one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realised that a third opinion had already been given. Alrighty, I'll close the MedCab request then. Cheers! //roux   06:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Old Times

Hey there, Kafziel. You may not remember me, but I was an editor back in the day, just got back in the saddle. Anyway, I was strolling down memory lane and saw that Brendan Filone's page is back up and running. Brought up by none other than Zarbon, who was recently unbanned. Thought you might want to know.--Orion Minor (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I was just thinking about Zarbon the other night when I was watching the finale of The Shield. He used to insist that some no-name guy from that show have an article, too. Maybe he still does...

Anyway, I'm an administrator now, and I wouldn't want to revisit an old grudge. Might seem inappropriate. But if he's screwing around, edit warring, vandalizing user pages, abusing copyright, etc. then feel free to report him at WP:ANI. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A vandal has been found.

User 208.13.158.2 continues to vandalism. Filed arv, however, a block has not taken place. User continues to vandalize, such as this and this and this which was vandalized by creating new accounts. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding... I believe another one year block would do. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wingfilee

Thank you for attending to this issue. I don't know what his game is, either.  Sandstein  20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hello Kafziel, I was wondering if I may be granted rollback rights so I may continue fighting vandalism using Huggle.

Thanks in advance samtar. samtar (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: I just declined this user's request for rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good call to me. Samtar, make some more edits on your own first. You don't need Huggle to be a good contributor. I don't use any of that stuff. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem editor

An editor you have kindly blocked several times in the past is once again acting uncivilly and edit-warring (he's never really stopped, actually, it's just that many of us are tired of calling him on it). I've documented some behavior from this month alone here in anticipation of leaving it as a warning on his talk page. I feel petty "tattling" like this because the things he ends up acting out over are silly, like the dates actors come and go on soap operas or images of soap characters. But his consistent personal attacks, refusal to consider the opinions of others and general disregard for basic policy just drives me up a wall. Frankly, I find myself sucked into arguing with him (which is, of course, futile) over just these kinds of ridiculous issues when I don't even care either way, I just take complete offense to his behavior. In any case, can you take a look and advise? I don't want to enflame the situation further, but this has been going on for over a year and he has not really learned a thing about how to behave here. Thanks in advance.— TAnthony^Talk 01:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Thanks for the heads up. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 02:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not interrupt my rights

Hi Kafziel, as an administrator i wish you should not interrupt my rights to removed some messages on my talk page. It is okay if you want to blocked my when i make some mistakes, but with unreasonable way, you proctected (it is same as blocked, right?) my talk page too! It is same as you interrupt me. I know that if i removed some messages it cannot solved anything, but i allowed to do that. Thanks. Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your info, Kafziel. I already know about that, but when i want to edit a page, i feel confident that my edited page already true, but sometimes i make a little/huge mistakes. Hahaha, next time i will carefully editing and always using preview.  Calvin Ho Jiang Lim  ^Talk 06:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Notifications about Page Unlocks

There is currently a discussion going on at WP:RFPP about whether to unprotect several articles. As the protecting administrator of Ahmed Deedat, you are invited to come join the discussion. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for discussion; page unprotected. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Onelifefreak2007

Sigh, Onelifefreak2007 continues to compulsively edit every few days as an IP, despite warnings. The latest is this edit; I have no objection to the edit itself, just the fact that he's doing it. How long can you block an IP? Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for two weeks and semi-protected the main character list. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Thought you might enjoy this [30]. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... very nice. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

189.4.217.92 at it again

You blocked 189.4.217.92 who has been adding subtle inaccuracies throughout wikipedia. His block expired and he's at it again (for instance he made Ali win his last fight and Freddie Kruger's mother give birth to him months after her death). Can you maybe block him again? Reboot (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Request

I am relatively new to the site but have made over 300 edits now. I would like to request the Rollback tool as it will allow me to combat vandalism more effectively, and more importantly, will stop me spending an hour trying to revert vandalism only to find out that someone else has gotten to the punch before me! I'm currently an adoptee of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) who is teaching me how to use all tools effectively and responsibly. He's happy for me to have the tool but doesn't want to give it to me himself as that would seem like favoritism! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

About the sockpuppets...

Here is the log of the individual who is making them: [31]. I'd report them all, but I don't think I'd have the patience to do that, and I'd probably overload the vandalism report page. CardinalDan (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That is freakin' tedious. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You got that right. The thing that bothers me was that the individual involved was banned indefinitely before, but still was able to make those accounts. CardinalDan (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Bongwarrior's original indef block allowed account creation. I guess he was trying to be nice. It's fixed now.

It's amazing how much free time some people have. At the end of their lives, I wonder if they'll remember all the time they wasted vandalizing Wikipedia when they could have been spelunking or skydiving or something. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

True. But some people get a kick out of doing that, I suppose. CardinalDan (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Deedat again

Hello, I tried to work on the Ahmed Deedat-page. I removed the texts, that were only supported by youtube-links, as a result of the WP:RS-policy. Furthermore, I had already given my reasons on Deedat's talk-page. However, someone is reverting my edits again. TO prevent me from violating the WP:3rr-rule, could you take a look at it, and see who is doing the right thing? I guess it is me, but I am not sureJeff5102 (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

AIV

You deleted this:

• 90.193.250.* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistent subtle vandalism (a<->no, acute<->chronic) of medical articles and Biograpies

Specific recent example case was 90.193.250.91 but same behaviour is seen across the range: user is hopping.08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How would I have known that it was .91? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Onelifefreak2007

Hey, not that I owe the guy any favors because of his past treatment of me, but do you have any idea why he's still blocked? He asked me to ask around, since he can't log in himself. BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the block has ended and there are no autoblocks on any related IP addresses. He should be able to log in and edit. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

January 14

What 'discussion' are you referring to here? I see none.

While the original edit is not vandalism, it is a) ahistorical; and b) trolling by an anon IP, editing from

• 121.72.177.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log);
• 121.72.176.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); and
• 121.72.180.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

so it has been removed. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely you don't think I'm a trolling IP.

It's not up to you to decide what is and is not worthy of inclusion. The discussion to which I was referring is here and, as I noted there, I was very close to blocking some folks (including you) for edit warring earlier. The abbreviated, neutral version of the IP's information—which is perfectly valid by Wikipedia's standards of verifiability—was a compromise to avoid doing that. So if you have a problem with that being there, I suggest you seek dispute resolution instead of edit warring over it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I do not have your talk page watch-listed, so I had no idea I was supposed to respond. Berating someone for your failure to ask for a response--the ordinary way of conducting a conversation in the real world as well as here--is at best rude. Equally important, berating an editor for not being aware of a conversation conducted entirely on someone else's talk goes past rude into presumptuous.

2) I have not 'admitted', belatedly or other-wise, to anything, as I didn't claim the edits to be vandalism. Nonetheless, given your attempt to use that statement as some sort of rhetorical club in some personal battle, I withdraw that comment and assert that yes, especially given this edit, its entire purpose was intentionally disruptive and there qualifies as vandalism.

3) I removed the listing for the simplest of reasons: it's completely non-historical, not to mention common-place, and such trivial and unimportant additions are removed from date pages dozens of times each day. Sourcing is utterly irrelevant, neutrality is utterly irrelevant: 'Osama bin Laden releases another video-tape' is barely a daily-news event, let alone worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia. It is not notable--and far, far, from 'clearly' notable--no matter how much table-banging you engage in.

4) Your eccentric defence of the IP's childish behaviour is best taken up with the various blocking administrators and not myself. As for your suggestion--coyly implied rather than directly stated--that they were unaware of what was going on, I'd suggest that you have no right or reason to impute such motives to them, and in fact, I'd further suggest that the opposite is true regarding awareness. Suffice to say, your threat to block a long-established editor for reversing the edits of someone already judged to be trolling--especially if done so without the least outside consultation--would look like extremely foolish behaviour. Doing so as part of a (what I'll grant for the sake of argument) content dispute that you've rendered an opinion on yourself would be even more foolish.

5) Your '[s]urely you don't think I'm a trolling IP' comment is utterly unsupported by my comments--I was simply providing context--and seems, like your 'vandalism' gloating, intended to stir up drama rather be productive in any way. I'd suggest that as an administrator, you ought not to be personalising disputes or trying to 'win' them as if they were battles.

If you wish to escalate things, that's your look-out, but I suggest that you get some outside consultation instead of unilaterally relying upon your presumed authority as an administrator. Now I've wasted enough time on this, but if you wish to reply, do so on my talk page per normal practice: WP:OWN can just as easily apply to conversations. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1) You posted here, I reply here. See the big, yellow banner at the top of the page? Those are not uncommon. And, no, OWN does not apply. From WP:TALKPAGE: "Should you encounter such a template make sure to read the information presented in such templates before posting a message so you will know where to look for a fresh response."

2) You say you never called his edits vandalism. What's this edit summary, then? If you prefer, you can blame those edit summaries on Twinkle, and then we'll proceed based on your having abused Twinkle to advance your position in an edit war, being so quick to revert that you didn't even know what your edit summaries were saying. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

3) If you think sourcing and neutrality are irrelevant, I invite you to seek community consensus on that. Good luck. In our discussion, Mufta held that the test for inclusion is whether the event has a related article. That one does. Dismissing it as "entirely unremarkable press releases of attention-seekers" shows that you have an opinion about that specific item. If your standards for inclusion are different then you need to seek dispute resolution.

4) I'm not guessing at other admins' motives. As a matter of fact, what started all of this was another admin blocking the IP and then realizing his mistake and reversing himself. I haven't brought the other admins into this because it's unnecessary at this point, but if I have to start an ANI thread about it I have no doubt that they will all advocate giving the IP another chance. And I don't have an opinion or a stake in the article; I am involved because there is an edit war going on, I have edited it in an attempt to mediate the dispute, and I will see it through as necessary to make sure there is no further edit warring. I'm well within my mandate.

5) You weren't just providing context; I was the one you reverted, not the IP.

I don't wish to escalate things. I'm just saying that if you revert that IP one more time without seeking dispute resolution, I will block you. End of story. So the ball is entirely in your court. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

January 15

I've been following the guy who keeps trolling the content on Jan 14 (he admitted he did it himself) for a while now, watching what he does. He just signed up for a new account under the name January Fourteen, and, just vandalized Here at January 15. This guy's gone on long enough. --SamB135 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is interesting. I'm guessing good hands, bad hands, but since the original blocks were yours, have a look. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's an obvious sock, abusing unblock templates, so I've blocked indef. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Buckberg

I invite you as a hearty friend, to contribute many improvements to the newly created article Buckberg.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not planning to try to use that article to support your position on Dunderberg. That's pretty transparent, and the lack of credible sources is just as obvious there as it is on the talk page discussion. It's what we call a POV fork. You can't make a conflicting article just because you don't like the way the conversation is going for you.

I guess I also need to point out at this point that OSINY is a private organization with a vested interest in claiming everything is part of some historic/protected/important region. It's hardly neutral or reliable. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I would ask that Buckberg Mountain be improved by various interested editors, beyond the two sources provided currently. The site is alreadly mentioned in the Wikipedia article concerning the Battle of Stony Point. I assume this is well-sourced. If not, perhaps you may delete the information.

One can reasonably expect there are a large number of sources available for Washington's Lookout on Buckberg, as it relates to operations in the Hudson Valley during the War of Independence.

If this region is truly of interest, perhaps you may contribute.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page blocking

Please do not block users from editing their talk page and from sending emails unless they have already abused those abilities. Particularly this is in regards to this block, although I noticed there are many others. I also unprotected your talk page, per the protection policy, hope you don't mind that. Prodego ^talk 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That user had already abused the talk page. And he knew he was doing it; see the page history. But I don't mind the unprotection there. I spent a lot of time trying to defend him and help him out, only to end up with egg on my face. If you want the job, it's yours.

I do mind the unprotection of my page, though. I've put up with plenty of trolling; it's not preemptive. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages aren't usually protected unless there's some sort of active vandalism occurring. Especially when it comes to administrators. You're blocking new users from easily responding to you or commenting/complaining about your actions... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what ANI is for. And I always watch the talk page of any user I communicate with. I also have my email enabled and linked to from my user page. If you have specific complaints about my being hard to reach, please bring them to my attention. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New users don't necessarily know about ANI, and email isn't a requirement for registration. Trolls are easy to ignore or nix if they do arise, and the best trolls are generally autoconfirmed anyways. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You block, on average, three users a month. I do a bit more. Working AIV attracts a lot of trolls, and if I choose to have this semi-protected for a while due to excessive vandalism, that's my right. "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite", and I always lift protection after what I deem a suitable period. If there are complaints by anonymous users, I'm listening. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I go through periods of activity and inactivity, and yeah, it's mostly been inactivity over the past several months. I have attracted trolls in the past. So what? What is the big issue? You've had your userpage protected since October. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not judging you. You can spend your time as you see fit. But you don't get to lecture me about trolls and talk page vandalism. Obviously nothing is happening right now... because my page is s-protected. That's kind of the point.

If you feel this is a case for the ArbCom, be my guest. Otherwise, I'm going to go work on the encyclopedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, once more, what's the issue with a little vandalism every one in awhile? Or even a lot of vandalism? My activity level is not a valid counterargument, and suggesting I take it up with ArbCom isn't particularly helpful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

None of this is "particularly helpful". Yours is a solution in search of a problem. If you don't have users complaining, I'm not interested. And I'm not using your lack of activity as a counter-argument; I'm just saying I know what I'm doing because I deal with it every day. I'm not lecturing you, and I don't need you lecturing me. If you have specific complaints from anons or new users, I am willing to hear them. My protection log shows I've always been willing to unprotect my page when requested or when I think a suitable amount of time has passed between dealings with major trolls. This time will be no different, but you happen to be catching me in the midst of a big one. You can either trust me on that or take it up the chain, but I'm not going to argue about it anymore on this page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You may already have noticed the ANI thread. I need to sleep, probably won't be around tomorrow, so there it is. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Back on track a moment: Protecting this page violates the protection policy, please unprotect it. Please do not block users from their talk page or email, this is how they request review. The only time to do so is if they repeatedly are vandalizing their talk page. That violates the blocking policy. Prodego ^talk 05:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I said I had no problem with your unblock of that user's talk page. He did abuse the block template, though. He was placing new unblock templates before the old ones had even been answered, and he knew he was abusing it [32]. Yes, it was worded very politely - that's how he operates. There's a very long history to this user, and I have been the one sticking my neck out to help him.[33] My talk page - and those of a couple other users - is currently covered with threads about this guy. A couple of threads above this one, Ricky asked me to review the talk page. I did so. But again, I have no problem whatsoever with you restoring his email and talk page rights. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said I would...

I would like to thank you (and apologize really) for putting up with this whole January 14 and January 15 IP edit war and, for in the beginning actually sticking up for the edits I made which was totally unexpected. Am I free to delete the unblock requests on my talk-page?

Sorry, and, Thankyou!

--SamB135 (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad we could work this out. You're free to delete anything you want on your user talk page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Timp Photo

Nice photo you put up labeled "Dunderberg" is the "Timp," which might be a better tag. One could do a brief article and throw in some geology if available, and something about soldiers using Timp Pass.

As a complete and total aside, this got me wondering whether triangulation, as practiced in navigation and map-making, could be applied to a photo. That is to say, can one orient and relate a photo to a map (or use it for map-making), purely by using angles, despite lense distortion. Not something I'd try at home.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:8ballrack.jpg

File:8ballrack.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:8ballrack-2.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:8ballrack-2.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:8ballrack.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:8ballrack-2.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. During the move I changed the name of the image due to a duplicate file name, the articles that contained the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art LACMA meetup

Due to some unforgivable confusion on my part, the meetup on Saturday the 28th needs to be rescheduled. Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Loves Art/LACMA rules#Rescheduling poll to vote for a day/time that works best for you. Thank you and I apologize for the inconvenience. howcheng {chat} 05:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:9ball.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:9ball.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 04:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question of 24 January

On January 24, I asked you a question concerning the Ahmed Deedat-page. Could I have an answer on that? And did you notice that my edits are reverted by User:Tripselse and User:SweatyTrainer, two users who only edit the Deedat-page, and BOTH were created on October 29, last year.Thanks in advance, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked that message. I haven't had as much Wikipedia time as I'd like lately, and I still don't have much right now. Give me one more day and I'll make time for a good look at the situation. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked those two users as sockpuppets and semi-protected the article for two weeks.

Please note, however, that there is no ban on using Youtube files as sources, as long as they meet our criteria (i.e., do not violate copyright and are not blacklisted). You may be right in removing them from the article—I'm not sure about the copyright on them—but they are fine as sources, as long as nobody uses them to make drawn-out suppositions based on the content. They would be fine if used for things like direct quotes, or as evidence of facts explicitly stated in the videos (again, copyright issues aside). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art new date

Based on participants' votes, Wikipedia Loves Art LACMA has been rescheduled to Saturday, February 21, 2009 starting at 1:00 PM. Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment and cannot attend. I will need someone to be coordinator for that day. Let me know if you are willing. Thanks, and have fun! howcheng {chat} 17:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art preparations

Are you read for WLA this Saturday? Here are some last minute preparations you should do before you arrive.

1. Be sure you have a spiral bound memo pad or notebook (and pen) to take notes and to use for writing the accession numbers, which you then have to photograph (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/LACMA rules for details).
2. Be sure to print out the scavenger hunt list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/LACMA rules/list. You may also wish to visit http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=onview1 to make a plan of attack.
3. Since tripods and monopods are not allowed in the museum, consider making a string tripod (not as good as the real thing, but better than nothing).

Additionally, we will plan to eat out afterwards at a nearby dining establishment (TBD) -- hope you can join us for that. And finally, I was able to make arrangements for my daughter so I will be able to attend after all. Looking forward to seeing you there! howcheng {chat} 19:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

David Charles Kramer wikipedia page

Hi, I am a DJ, guitarist, and vocalist and my wikipedia page was deleted. I have been on two commercially released cds, have performed all over the country, and have received awards from the US local business association. Will you assist me in getting this article back on the site?

David Kramer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdevious (talk • contribs) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First, ask yourself this: If you're notable enough to have an article here, wouldn't someone else have written one at some point over the course of the past two years? We generally frown on conflicts of interest and self promotion. There's more on that here.

Although the media have often made Wikipedia out to be some kind of barometer of pop culture success, it really doesn't work that way. People who want to find some kind of career validation by starting an article here are almost always disappointed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are able

Please look at one of my recent edits and tell me if I am paranoid or the user is genuinely not the same - [34] - it seems too obvious to me - I wonder at the naivete - or whether there was on off wiki request to start again?

I have walked away from the user/s talk page and have no interest in returning - the indiscriminate eternal editing mistakes and almost unintelligible english has left me deciding I need to hand it over to someone else lest I get done for some form of antagonism.

Please feel free to contact me off wiki if it seems more discreet on a matter like this SatuSuro 11:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is quite odd that someone blocked starts up again a few days later and assumes an innocent persona. With an id so close to the previous. Like we cannot check stuff. Odd. SatuSuro 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And as for that - hmmm - do you have the diffs for the original block - or are they now in the ether? SatuSuro 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What diffs are you looking for? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I want sure what the original crimes of the blocked one were - wasnt sure if they would be obvious at the original name - and related links and veiwable by anyone - or whether they were admin view only territory - but hey no big deal if they are lost or whatever SatuSuro 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He was originally blocked for disruption and copyright violations, so most of the related edits were deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - look like it continues below - sorry that I should rekindle it in a way SatuSuro 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Goes with the territory. Feel free to let me know if you see him editing again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - will do SatuSuro 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WHY!!?!?!?!?!?!?

why did u delete da aritcle Joey King?

Um... that was two years ago, dude. Two other admins have deleted it again since then, for failing this guideline. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete My Archives, Stupid!

Hey dull, delete my archives PLEASE! CHJL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.110.32 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what archives you're talking about. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

pt:Predefinição:Manual de jogos

Hi,

You cannot vote on pt-wikipedia because it's necessary to have at least 45 days since the first contribution on pt-wikipedia and at least 100 contributions on the main namespace on pt-wikipedia before the deletion discussion (see: pt:Wikipedia:Direito ao voto). That's why your vote does not count (and we use <s> </s>). Not even Jimbo Wales could vote on pt-wikipedia. But you are still welcome to comment under the "Comentários".

Best regards, Takkyuu (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again,

We don't want to be rude or anything. Could you provide us an address/link on meta which could show us that we're wrong? We could count your vote if you show us something that proves you can vote. We're not used to accept votes, but if that's on meta, we are gonna have to accept.

Anyway, the template is probably not going to be deleted because it's necessary 2/3 to delete it, and most people are voting to keep.

Best regards, Takkyuu (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Shavenotes.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shavenotes.gif, 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No argument here. Deleted it myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 20:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 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) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:St Uros' Cathedral.jpg

File:St Uros' Cathedral.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:St Uros Cathedral.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:St Uros Cathedral.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Foundation stone information

Why wouldn't you want to show the Foundation Stone Ceremony, one of the few ceremonies seen by the public, and describe its significance?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Canton Viaduct (talk • contribs)

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't even know what a foundation stone ceremony is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Compact Cassette

I have nominated Compact Cassette for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Stephen 05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Stopped caring about FA reviews a long time ago. I don't WP:OWN the article, and the flip side of that is that I can't be expected to care about it when the quality begins to suffer after subsequent years of shitty editing. I'm not interested in "reviewing" it just so it can go to the dogs again as soon as we're finished, and a year or two later be right back here again. I decided to get off the merry-go-round. Thanks anyway. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Onelifefreak2007

This user you indefinitely blocked has been coming back regularly as an IP. The IPs tend to stay static for a while, and his latest IP incarnation [35] is under a second month long block by myself. Anyway, he's determined to participate here, and as his original blocking administrator I thought you should weigh in. We've been discussing things here, if you have anything to add. AniMate^talk 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Block looks good to me. There's absolutely no reason to think he'll do anything to change his behavior. I'm short on time right now, but I may go through and s-prot some articles for a while. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is unnecessary. His IP is static, and I've blocked him until April. Thanks for weighing in. AniMate^talk 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for dealing with it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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) 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MilHist article for the Signpost?

Hi there: I see you're interested in both. I have vague plans to write a "Dispatch" article later this year highlighting WP's unique ability to tell the stories of milhist, from the memories of the actual participants. If you're interested, I'll buzz you later when I get up the energy.

I notice that you participated in an RFC late last year on date autoformatting, and mentioned my name :-).

I'm afraid this issue is the subject of another RFC, with a new proposal to add long template strings to edit-mode dates (it still wouldn't do date-spans, if you please). There's even an ArbCom injunction against the removal of autoformatting or linking, in force until the matter is finally resolved at a current RFC. You may wish to make your views on autoformatting (Question 1) and year/month-day linking (Qs 2 and 3) known again, whatever your opinion now. It's open until Monday, I think. WP:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

PS I should say that apparently it’s still OK to delink on an occasional basis, for example, in featured articles that you nominate, but caution may be the best approach for the moment. Tony (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi,

How do you add pictures to articles?

Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminTeague123456 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

First, make sure the picture meets our Image Use Policy. Most importantly, it needs to:

1. Be a picture you took
2. Be a picture you are willing to irrevocably release for anyone to use or modify
3. Serve only to improve the article

There are occasional exceptions, but you should start there. If your image satisfies the policy, you can upload it. If you need help after that, just let me know. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

DLI userbox

In my quest to actually have an alumni userbox for all of the colleges I have attended, I recently created a DLI Userbox. Seeing that you have attended DLI as well, I thought I'd let you know. -- PEPSI2786^talk 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedian is an alumnus of the Defense Language Institute.

Very cool! Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

why you have a nickname KAFZIEL?? it is a satanist's angel.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.94.37 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacker Request

Hello , I am a Wikieditor who diligently works to improve Wikipedia.

I am dedicated and I wish to recieve the Rollbacker power.

Thanks , April809's Contribution ..... (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

unprotect freemasons for addition of a link

Hi kafziel,

I wanted to add a link to the freemasonry wiki page the link is to the grand lodge of victoria( australia) for any whom after viewing your page wish to contact us for more information the link is http://www.freemasonsvic.net.au/

thanks scott207.169.186.10 (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deedat/Islamforever

Hello, I hate it to bother you again, but it appears that User:IslamForEver1 is using a new sock puppet at the Ahmed Deedat-page: it is User:Movieporchz. It is only editing the same edits on the Deedat-page, and it is, like all his other puppets, created at 29 October 2008. Could you have a look at it? Thanks in advance, Jeff5102 (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Doughboy award.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Doughboy award.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism

In a followup to my rollbacker privilage request , I would like to inform you about a piece of vandalism removed by me.

The page was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.227.227.2

The offender was:

12.29.246.3

I will continue to look for vandalism and remove it.

Aprill809

20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing Copyright Infringement

Hello,

I see you are an admin. Wondering what can be done, if anything to remove the "Possible copyright infringement" notice from List of New York State Historic Markers in Cortland County, New York. The author had a negative experience with some of his own articles before, and from that I believe he is incorrectly asserting that no marker text may be included in Wikipedia. A simple search of "historical markers" will find numerous articles with marker text included. The page Historical marker itself not only has several images of markers, but links to other pages that have full text as well. The real clincher though is that all of this text is in the public domain, unless someone can prove otherwise. I appreciate your help and support.

Inoysterbay (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not really anything to do. If he's determined to proceed with this, then you'll just have to wait to see what the community decides. My time on Wikipedia is limited right now, but I'll try to keep an eye on the discussions and add my two cents when appropriate. Good luck! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your funny vandalism page. Thanks for reminding me that people are weirdly funny. I dream of horses (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Heroes or something else

[sockpuppetconfirmed|Calvin Ho Jiang Lim] and now we have [36] its a bit like do they ever learn or I am very very mistaken? - cheers and keep up the good work SatuSuro 04:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead Or Alive: Code Chronos

A user by the name of New Age Retro Hippie is constantly deleting the information page for the videogame Dead or Alive: Code Chronos. His reasoning for is claiming that there hasn't been any new information on the game by the developer. However, the game hasn't been confirmed as cancelled (and shouldn't be considered as such) as the user is trying to claim and has been merely considered Vaporware. The user is speculating with no valid evidence to support their claim. All attempts to try and reason with the user have ended up fruitless in a reverting war. The user appears to revert moreso as a personal vendetta than anything else.Beem2 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Dunderberg Edits

You were so aggressive on this topic. And wrong and entirely misinformed.

You were totally wrong about Anthony Wayne, wrong about basic geography and miserably wrong about Thomas Edison. Yet you attacked me incessantly and trading unfairly on your "status" as administrator, threatened to have me banned.

Based on this record, in a perfect world, you would be banned as an administrator.

You should really back off and consider things more carefully. Oh, and what ever happened with your mislabled photo of the Timp? Nothing apparently. Remarkably irresponsible editing.

I think you should view recent edits on Dunderberg Mountain. The article is now much more accurate and much expanded since you've disappeared.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I never threatened to block you for your edits. Persistent personal attacks like this one are what will get you blocked. And I didn't disappear: I've noticed your amazingly childish attempts to goad me with your edit summaries, but I decided to be the bigger man and let it go. So don't come to my talk page to poke at me. You're doing some good work here - keep it up, but lose the attitude. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion threats; not ban

Sorry, you're right. I misremembered the exact nature of your unsavory threats to pull rank. The article is indeed much improved with a number of glaring errors corrected.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misremember an awful lot; I never "threatened" to delete anything, either. Why would I want to delete the Dunderberg article? I started it.

Are you really looking for some kind of special recopgnition for editing and improving an article? That's what you're supposed to be doing here, just like everyone else. Your extremely meager contributions do not excuse your aggressive behavior. I've been willing to let it go for quite some time, but I've seen just about enough of your harassment of other editors. Decide where your priorities lie: Are you here to improve articles, or are you here to instigate arguments? I strongly suggest you choose the former, and move on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Picking fight

Yeah, you're making yet another threat based on the utterly pathetic authority you've got as Wikipedia Administrator.

What can one make of this?

You see, I'm fervently hoping that you confirm my thesis that you are a fool. You can fulfill my hope by banning me.

You are misremembering your earlier threat to delete. I suggest looking at talk page for Buckberg where these silly threats are on record.

Why can't you now recall this?? Are you fundamentally dishonest to yourself, or only to me??

Regardless this deep dishonesty results in seriously flawed editing.

I gather your thing is deleting articles and bullying non-administor editors and while introducing various errors based on narrow misinformation. The net result is a loss to Wikipedia --- and it's very slow but perhaps inevitable decline.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent Deletion

Wondering if you could help me on the subject of Outer Space Entertainment, i believe the topic is in fact worth of quite some notability, especially with the recent YouTube fame, an independent record label getting the attention of mega-stars such as Lil Wayne is extraordinary, and permanent deletion of the subject will surely cause a stir in the community.

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Given with respect and admiration to Kafziel for all your work and especially the kindness shown to Calamitybrook. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I meant to include this diff in the barnstar, but it breaks the template. Thanks for being a good model, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant

from policy pages:

Conflicts of interest

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not engaged in a content dispute. We hadn't spoken in ages, until you decided to start making personal attacks on my talk page. You said yourself that I "disappeared". If you think the policy is saying my hands are tied just because we have had previous interactions, then you quite misunderstand it. From WP:UNINVOLVED:

Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace. Calm discussion and explanation of the warning likewise does not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocking actions taken against the warned user.

We interacted only in terms of the original research policy, the NPOV policy, and the civility policy. I've also asked you not to mark your edits as minor, which would be a community norm.

Again, I'm happy to let bygones be bygones. As far as I'm concerned, you have a clean slate. Decide how you want to spend your time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

More on Admin Conflict

Uhhh...Oh yeah..."pages or subject areas with which they (administrators) are involved" would of course exclude your discussion page!!! Eureka!!!

Also obvioiusly excluded is that the discussion in question concerned a page you had previously edited and disputed with me!!!

Thanks for setting me straight on all this!!!!....... I'm so often confused....Please help me any time!!!!.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC) _____________

P.S.... Also reverting my own edits to my personal user page discussion.... is another remarkably dubious action on your part.

Please refrain from "administering" me..... That is, please recuse yourself from blocking me or editing my user page or whatever you may again contemplate...

If you believe administrative action is required with regard to my Wikipedia account, then please ask a different administrator to get involved.

THANKS

Calamitybrook (talk)

Personal attacks can always be reverted, even when you make them on your own talk page.

I don't need to bother anyone else with this nonsense. If you can edit constructively, there's no problem. If you can't, I am capable of taking care of it myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

reminder

Hi, sorry to disturb you, but on May 5th I warned for another sockpuppet (User:Movieporchz) of User:IslamForEver1 on the Ahmed Deedat-page. It is active again. Could you do something agaist him, or advice me how to get rid of that guy?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's already been blocked. Sorry for the oversight. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Those things can happen. Unfortunately, a new user (User:VisitedHead bluntly reverted my edits again on the Deedat-page. I am afraid User:IslamForEver1 got a lot of puppets in his possesion.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked that user, and semi-protected the page so only established users can edit it. Hopefully that will help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope so too. Many thanks, anyway!Jeff5102 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

What
Is
Kafziel's
I
P
Even
Doing
In
America? --Queen Beverley (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Adil your block - I recommend unblock

If Adil is not part of the sockpuppetry, my experience has been that the best practice is to unblock them, and then move past that and deal with any behavioral problems.

Clearing up the apparently wrong sockpuppetry conclusion first seems to help with a lot of problems.

I agree that his behavior has problems, but I think they can be handled with less drastic responses, and I'd rather if we kept it clear what the block had been for and hadn't been for.

My two cents, anyways. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even remotely convinced that he's not using sockpuppets there. He's even been blocked for it before. But it doesn't matter now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Permissions issue

The following need OTRS confirmation of the permission you obtained.

• Commons:File:Gravitron1.jpg
• Commons:File:Gravitron3.jpg
• Commons:File:Gravitron2.jpg

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've sent the author an email requesting updated permissions. Will forward his reply or remove the images as appropriate. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)