User talk:Kafziel/archive4

Hey

Thanks for tips. Couldn't help noticin your pics. You go to Fenway a lot? I live right outside Boston go to every sox game i can.

Also what would it take for me to get the photographers barnstar? I got tons of pics of points of interest.

Kupari

I have explained the meaning of the term on the talk page. Unfortunately before I could complete it you had reomved it.

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't remove anything but the speedy tag. Kafziel ^Talk 14:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that you did it as per rules. No problem. Have listed an AFD: [1]. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nero "secular" war

The Nero article often gets a bunch of religious people who want to change things up because they learned Nero persecuted Christians. Its a fairly regular task to protect it from religious folk and keep it based on secular Roman histories.

I know its only a semantic argument and its subtle. I don't know why this guy doesn't like the word "secular", but I don't want to refer to Roman historians in the opening as "non-Christian" as its not the tone of the article.

Anyway, sorry for all of this.Hoshidoshi 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with your position; there's absolutely nothing wrong with the word "secular" in that context. But the difference of opinion there isn't vandalism, so it still falls under the 3RR restriction. You still need to revert the change and continue discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So Hoshidoshi continues his personal attacks of here. But nevermind, what I wanted to write was this:

Kafziel, my issue was indeed a minor one. Is it my fault that it got stone-walled? Also, I wasn't on the road to breaking 3RR and cannot be held accountable for the fact that Hoshi did. Also, EAlacey did agree with me so it's hardly me religious looney. In any case, Hoshi knows nothing about me and still writes things like that. No way to go. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not punishing you for 3RR, but more than one revert in a day is "on the road" to breaking 3RR.

I also don't see what you mean about being stonewalled; he's been discussing this consistently on the talk page. He's entitled to his opinion no matter how many users may disagree with him (which, thus far, is not very many). He's not entitled to break 3RR, but since you're the one who made the change in the first place, etiquette dictates that the burden is on you to explain it. Short of that, anyone can put it back in. Kafziel ^Talk 18:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough about the road. Anyway, I did not break 3RR. Anyway, I am glad that Hoshi wasn't blocked after all, as I don't delight in such things. Obviously you haven't been involved in the discussion as Hoshi first reverted a few times before he actually posted on the talk page (agreed, I didn't do it the first time either, but I did so after being reverted for the first, while Hoshi did only call me to "discuss" without doing it himself) and then he didn't address the concerns or the changes he was reverting (in contrast to the other editor involved, the one consistently ignored by Hoshi)but only insisted on the previous version being good while attacking me personally. Just to clear things up. No hard feelings. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I am pretty sure this is user evading block [2] a sockpupet of recently blocked user Basedview22 (talk · contribs). I broke 3RR rule but I believe this is according wiki policy. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

protection of Islamic mathematics

I was actually hoping you could block Arash under the

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system.

clause of WP:3RR, but if not could you please unprotect Islamic mathematics. I'm actually doing some productive editing (mostly unrelated to the little disputed a few users are having) and their behaviour has now gone from annoying to problematic due to the protection. —Ruud 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On second though, I'll just edit a copy in my user space and hope they will move on to fight over another page in the mean time. —Ruud 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That will work. Sorry about the disruption, but I had to put a lid on that without favoring either side of the dispute. Kafziel ^Talk 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

English

Sorry, but my English is bad... JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. My Portuguese is bad. But that's why I don't contribute to the Portuguese Wikipedia. Kafziel ^Talk 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
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. Ralbot 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Best efforts

I'm no stranger to TWV, however I don't always think it's best to "jump in feet first" without a little bit of background, or to avoid a 3RR block on symantics (if I'd taken the time on the 3RR report to show the content versus the reverts...). The talk page is cluttered and has 2 or 3 active issues going on, which makes it hard to discern consensus or disruptive behavior -- you can take me at my word in saying this has been ongoing for days. At any rate, discussion is moot at this point. Thanks for your tireless efforts etc etc.  :-) /Blaxthos 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think discussion is moot. And the page protection/3RR warning got Threeafterthree to make his first post on the talk page. Results already! Kafziel ^Talk 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Threeafterthree has been posting on the talk page, it's just that he signs as "Tom", not as "Threeafterthree". Cogswobbletalk 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Related note

Check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_User:Kafziel_and_Fox_News_Channel. - auburnpilot talk 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to inform you of the same. Don't take it personally, but I just think a third party should review this situation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

63.88.36.5

This editor just vandalized five articles in the last day. I see that you blocked him/her once - I suggest that another block is appropriate. Simesa 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered seeks guidance on UserNames.

I've added the following at [3].

Since you've been involved, I thought you might like to comment either here or there.

Hello - the following may be in the wrong place, but I'd like to float things past people anyway. I'm here as PalestineRemembered [4], and I edit exclusively on one topic (you guessed it). I have personal reasons for acting in this way, which I attempted to explain on my UserPage. However, even my attempts to explain seem to cause huge problems. The question I have for you all is - does my UserName really present a problem? Most people use some form of nickname for much the same reason as I'm doing. Mine is slightly different, I'm using it to share with you all something I wish to share (I trust that makes everyones life easier). I'm sure many other people are posting much as I do, but with less transparency. Is there something fundamentally wrong with a UserName such as mine? PalestineRemembered 09:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FoxNews

My major problem with you was the initial threat of blocking everyone. Please understand, that from my perspective there was a) no edit war, b) no need to block anyone and c) certainly no need to edit protect the article. So when your first post was in effect, "I don't care what you think, get over it" coupled with your (IMO gleeful) re-telling of how you had previously blocked everyone at some edit dispute and I guess we should be lucky you didn't do the same here, it took me aback. That kind of action or attitude certainly was not necessary here. Just remember, the 3RR report was about a caption that could've been simply removed. The intro stuff was in the discussion phase, no one had editted it significantly for a few days. I've been here for three years, and have been in some very heated debates. But never have I been threatened with a block, and usually a consensus is reached. Looking at it now, you may have been joking about blocking everyone, but it comes across horribly, when a) I don't know you or your style, b) you have already done something that I consider to be way overboard and possibly borderline abusive (re: use of your sysop powers regarding locking the page). My mentions of being blocked was not about you, and actually being blocked, I was being sarcastic. I'm sure Blaxthos got it because we have a prior relationship, but since you don't know me, you took it a different way. See how these things can happen in cyberspace :). In any case, I've slept on it and although I still believe you were wrong, I'm not going to hold it against you in the future and am willing to get past it. However, I will not be going to Foxnews, and since apparantly Blaxthos is doing the same, I guess that debate is over. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what I actually said:

You can disagree all you like. The other editors who were reverting his changes had no more right to do so than he had to make them. He did not violate 3RR (and if we're going to talk about blocking someone based on the spirit of 3RR, then I could have blocked everyone involved - it wouldn't be my first time). Reach consensus (not just a bunch of people shouting louder than some other people, as I explained above) and then the article will be unprotected.

• First part: "The other editors who were reverting his changes had no more right to do so than he had to make them." That's a fact. Nobody has the right to edit war, no matter how right they are.
• Second part: "He did not violate 3RR." That's a fact. He didn't. He reverted exactly three times.
• Third part: After I decline to block someone at 3RR, I often get appeals asking me to block based on the spirit of the rule. In other words, to go ahead an issue a block even though the person didn't actually revert four times. Because the purpose of 3RR is to stop edit wars, so we don't let people game the system by reverting just enough to stay out of trouble. So before someone asked me to consider that, I thought I'd let you all know that I had considered it.
• Fourth part: It would not be my first time blocking all sides in a dispute. Fact. It's a major headache (believe it or not, even bigger than this one has been) and I don't like it, but I've done it. It's no joke. But that in no way implies that I would do it here because, as has been made abundantly clear to all involved, I didn't block anyone at all, not even the guy you all wanted me block. Nobody was threatened with a block there. But, more to the point, you weren't even involved in the edit war—it was Threeafterthree, Blaxthos, and (to a lesser extent) Clindhartsen—so I don't see where you come in at all. Even if I had blocked everyone involved, it wouldn't have had anything to do with you.

There was nothing out of line in anything I did - pages are locked as a result of 3RR all the time - or anything I said. I can understand wanting to stick up for Blaxthos, but trying to turn this into some personal vendetta against me isn't the way to do it. Kafziel ^Talk 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm attempting to move past this thing, since I don't want you thinking I'm some kind of whiner, or oversensitive jerk, I was just telling you how your post came across yesterday. It may not have been what you intended, but that is how it was recieved by me.

2. Again, I still haven't seen the edit war. As I have stated numerous times by now, no one was edit warring from my vantage point. We clearly have a disagreement there. I am willing to agree to disagree.

3. I agree and have said so to Blaxthos, and on the talk page.

4. And again, I NEVER asked anyone to block anyone based on 3RR. I was not in any way a part of that dispute. All I know is that the night before there was some sort of compromise, and Tom was editting against the compromise. I don't even know how exactly. If I had known Blaxthos was going to ask for a block, I would have advised him not to. When I said, you could've blocked him, I was referring to the less restrictive means of blocking one editor (or several if warranted, which in this case we agree was not) instead of locking the entire article. Other less restrictive options, would have been a general warning to one or all, or to simply say no block. You apparently weighed all these options and chose to lock the page. Again I disagreed with that option. I am willing to agree to disagree.

5. I would like to think you could see how that might be taken the wrong way by an editor who didn't think, or even didn't know, an edit war was going on. I turn on the computer to see where the discussion from the previous evening had gone, and find the page locked. I state my disagreement with the lock, and am told that you considered blocking me for edit warring (again that is what it sounded like to me). I had seen no discussion of 3RR, "spirit of 3RR" and am being lumped in to a discussion that I have no idea about. Even if you don't agree with my reaction, I would hope you could understand why that would be upset me.

6. I have no personal vendetta against you, and stated so both on this talk page when I notified you of the report on ANI (I only wanted a 3rd party to review it and would've abided by whatever was said or decided) and today when I explicitly stated "I'm not going to hold it against you in the future and am willing to get past it". I do believe locking the page was out of line because I don't think there was an edit war and if there was one, Auburn Pilot, Arzel, Cogwobble, the anon, Doldrums, and myself were certainly not a part of it. But I just want to drop this whole thing, so I am also willing to agree to disagree.

7. Oh and for the record, I never thought YOU, Kafziel, were going to block me. You opened the door with the "blocking everyone" language, and I was having fun with it. The "master" language was again me being admittedly snide (I probably went too far, so I'll apologize for that), but I was having fun that you locked the page and then "ordered" us to discuss to reach consensus, when as far as I knew we were.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page is unlocked now and has been since early this morning, so you guys can feel free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary. I only arrived at the article to follow up on the 3RR report; I'm not sticking around as the Edit War Police. It would probably be good for everyone to leave it alone for a while, but I'll never know either way; the page has been off my watch for several hours. So you don't even have to be willing to agree to disagree - there is no disagreement. The page was protected. Now it isn't. You can do whatever you want to the page and never hear another word about it from me. Kafziel ^Talk 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks, I'm pretty much done with Fox and this discussion. good luck. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's probably for the best. I can certainly understand. On the bright side, no matter who sticks with it, eventually it will all be worked out. Kafziel ^Talk 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Crossposting from UserTalk

Okay, you win. I'll go ahead and revert all the changes I made... oh, wait, I didn't make any. I'll put the FAQ tag back... oh, wait, I never removed it. So I'll just unprotect the article and you can edit it... oh, wait, I already did that, too. Maybe if I unblock all your friends... oh, wait, I didn't block anyone. In that case, I'm at a loss as to precisely what the hell you want from me. Kafziel ^Talk 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this step by step.

• That condescending, smartass attitude is what got you jumped on and set the incorrect tone in the first place. We expect more from our administrators, and I would certainly hope that you understand that it serves no purpose.
• Regarding the 3RR report:

• 1st revert: 17:46, 1 May 2007

Removed text The Fox News "Fair & Balanced" slogan has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. which was reached by consensus.

• 2nd revert: 06:35, 2 May 2007

Removed text has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. again.

• 3rd revert: 06:40, 2 May 2007

Removed the image entirely, rather than abide by consensus.

• 4th revert: 09:19, 2 May 2007

Removed has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. again.

Now, how come we have like 4 (established) editors reverting his changes? Maybe it's because we reached consensus... none of us violated 3RR, because with multiple editors you get oversight, whereas one obstenant editor consistantly reverting changes will be subject of 3RR violation. Now, granted, looking back you may not consider the removal of the image entirely as a revert, but that seems more like a technicality (since the same changes were effected). Also please note that he went on for DAYS doing this, after being corrected by admins and other editors.

• I haven't requested anything from you. It's my hope that you will both adjust your attitude towards the users with whom you interact, and you will either (a) do a little more fact finding before declaring that an edit war is ongoing (dig a little deeper man, you've got multiple experienced editors in good standing telling you that you jumped the gun), or (b) stop trying to mediate disputes like that entirely. Either issue the block, or say "no a block isn't appropriate because _____". Don't jump in half-assed and think you know what's occuring -- the edit times alone show that you took nothing more than a cursory look before (1) declaring an edit war, (2) protecting the page, and (3) making remarks that came across as "gleeful", selfrighteous, and power-tripish.

I'm sure it'll be tempting to brush off our criticism with some manner of admins are never appreciated and/or admins can't make everyone happy. I can assure you (as I'm sure AuburnPilot and others would) that I'm not unreasonable and my criticsm isn't personal or angry. I've been with the project since 2004, and this is the first friction I've ever had with an admin (save early in my first month of editing three years ago). My only intent is in the hopes that you'll take some of this to heart and you'll be a better admin for it.  :-)

Hope this helps clear the air. /Blaxthos 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's just about enough of this. Last time I'm going to say it: You declared that there was an edit war when you made the 3RR report. A person can't violate 3RR unless other people are reverting him. That's just common sense. Even if you were right, even if you had a hundred people on your side, you were still edit warring. Is it not a war just because one side outnumbers the other?

I don't mediate disputes. Never have. I have no taste for the silly slap-fighting that goes on. As the saying goes, "Fighting on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." I offered a couple of opinions, but never once did I attempt to "jump in" and say, "Hey, guys, let's not fight." You asked me to stop Threeafterthree from reverting. I did. Don't like how I did it? Maybe you'll do things differently when you're an administrator. Probably not.

As for my attitude, quit being such a crybaby. The very first thing you did - before I ever posted anything on any talk page - was go crying to AuburnPilot because I refused to do your dirty work. And when he agreed with my decision, you started moaning on AN/I about what a sad state of affairs it all was. So don't try to act like this all started because of something I said. You were already whining as soon as you didn't get your way, just like countless other 3RR reporters before you. I'm not an asshole (just ask Threeafterthree), but I'm not a pushover, either. I don't need to read 18 archived talk pages to be able to see that there was a revert war going on, and I don't need to read all that shit to earn the right to voice an opinion on the talk page, either. Kafziel ^Talk 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on now... that's so full of holes it'll take another bullet list to sort it all out. First off, by your logic, any reported 3RR constitutes an edit war? Even when there is one rogue editor who refuses to abide by consensus? Your solution to this is protecting the page? That makes it so that even those who are part of the consensus are sanctioned as well. Beyond that, this is a consensus project -- if the other side is "outnumbered" then it's usually one or two lone holdouts (in this case one)... so don't we go with what the consensus is, rather than tirelessly 2R every day until he decides to play by the rules? Your logic is severely flawed.

Secondly, I went to AuburnPilot to ask his opinion more than anything, and I was completely unaware of Ramsquire's ANI report until after the fact. AuburnPilot and I have a long history, and I made no request of his services. No edit requests, no block requests, no unprot request, not even a request to talk to you... I simply lamented your (flawed) response; I didn't ask him to do anything other than render his opinion. Later, when it seemed he was overlooking some of the history and previously-agreed-upon points I dissented on ANI, but again I've not asked anyone to do anything, nor did I make the report.

Thirdly, more of the condescending attitude is either bullyish or pathetic (or both). Characterizing editors as "whiney" when they call you out for perceived mistakes and flawed logic does us both a disservice. I came to you firmly but in good spirits, and tried to end it in such a way that makes you realize: (1) it's not personal, and (2) perhaps you could have handled it better. I even gave a paragraph about how you shouldn't just write this off as a whiney user, but to no avail.

Fourthly, hiding behind "just kiddings" and "if you knew me..." to excuse your attitude is just avoiding responsibility. Frankly, we don't know you. You've now had multiple editor questioning your attitude as much as your conduct, which should be a red flag. I'm sure that wikipedia is full of "crybabies" who like to "whine", but perhaps some question of your attitude and conduct is legitimate, no? I should hope you're mature enough to step back and actually consider the points editors have made with regards to such.

Finally, don't be a dick. /Blaxthos 20:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you've mistaken me for someone else. Show me anywhere where I said "just kidding". I haven't been kidding with you about a single thing, and not once have I claimed to be. (I did sarcastically call myself a bastard on AuburnPilot's page, but that joke was for him, not for you, and I still never said I was kidding.) And whether you know me or not is irrelevant - I am right and you are wrong, so I have no reason to make excuses. I put up with this bullshit from trolls and vandals all day, and I have very little patience for defending myself against the people I'm trying to help. If you don't like my attitude, you can always stop talking to me.

Yes, every 3RR report is an edit war. Some of them are mitigated by the fact that one side refuses to discuss the situation, and some of them are mitigated by the fact that one side was blatant vandalism, but this one was neither. I didn't chastise you for reverting him, I didn't say you were wrong to bring it to 3RR (except to note that he did not make 4 reverts, which is true; even if you count deleting the image, that came immediately after his second revert, with no one else in between, so it was just an additional edit), I didn't blame you for any part of the situation. I just locked the article for a few hours to let everyone cool off. You chose to waste that time whining about me, but you can whine all you like and you will still be wrong. You can take it to AN/I, you can take it to RfC, you can take it the ArbCom, but absolutely nobody will say I was wrong to temporarily protect that article. Kafziel ^Talk 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. The choice to protect or block as you see fit is up to your judgement, and not everyone is going to think you handled it right. However, the point is your attitude and how it helped escalate the situation instead of defusing it.

Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks... If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true.

— WP:DICK

/Blaxthos 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So... you were wrong and I was right. Actually, that is the point. Entirely. Kafziel ^Talk 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am, by definition, wrong because it's your decision to make. The point is in quotes above. My point (and others'), which you conveniently have overlooked multiple times, is that you don't have to (and in fact should not) take a stance that alienates editors or tosses gasoline on the fire. Whether or not you think you did or didn't, you've now had several editors comment that you did, intentionally or not (mens rea is irrelevant anyway). A mature admin would be able to step back and consider the merits of that point. I wish you luck. /Blaxthos 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the point, which you have conveniently overlooked, is that you were already having a hissy fit before I said a goddamned thing. Quitcher bitchin. Kafziel ^Talk 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just the response I expected... par for the course. /Blaxthos 07:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm nothing if not consistent. So are we done here, then? Kafziel ^Talk 11:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your support: [5]. -- Petri Krohn 05:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Zamias Services Inc

Hello. I wrote this article as a "work in progress" in order to have an entry for a company that owns and operates malls in the eastern US. I noticed that there are LOTS of real estate developers that have articles on Wikipedia and I thought it would be a good idea to write about this company's history, particularly because of their history as one of America's first shopping mall developers, starting back in the 1950's. Because of their contribution to US history, I thought they deserved an entry on Wikipedia. I did not intend to write it as a way to promote the company, as I have no connections to the company whatsoever.

Based on Wikipedia Spam Policy, this article should be allowed based on the following statement taken from the policy:

"However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." Pghpghpgh 05:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article didn't assert any sort of notability under our guidelines for companies. However, if you can find reliable sources that prove it meets those guidelines, you can file a request for deletion review. Kafziel ^Talk 11:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Calship_Burner_By_Edna_Reindel.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how it is difficult for yourself (and others) to examine the copyright status. This image and the link provided on the image http://www.army.mil/cmh/art/A&I/0307-3.jpg clearly shows that it is on the U.S. Army Center of Military History website and according to the Wikipedia copyright policy in: "Images on our web site that are in the public domain may be used without permission. If you use images from our web site, we ask that you credit us as the source. Please note that some images on our site have been obtained from other organizations. Permission to use these images should be obtained directly from those organizations. This image or document is from the collection of the US Army Military History Instute, most of which was produced by a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." It further states " Anyone who intends to use these materials commercially should contact the individuals depicted or their representatives. We cannot confirm copyright status for any item. We recommend that you contact the United States Copyright Office at The Library of Congress to search currently copyrighted materials." I already have a description of the image and a proper URL to the source of the image. If you have a concern or issue with this, I suggest you please contact the U.S. Army Center of Military History for further assistance. My regards -Signaleer 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think all they're saying is that just because an image is on a military website doesn't mean it's public domain. As you point out in the statement you're quoting, the image may or may not be ("most of which"). Confirming copyright status is the responsibility of the person who uploads the image. Kafziel ^Talk 11:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it is on the Center of Military History website, one can assume that it is public domain since it is on the army.mil website, therefore I will assume that it is public domain. Unless there is a website or source that proves the source is indeed copyrighted, it seems unorthadox for the discussion to begin with. -Signaleer 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just it - you can't assume. Well, you can assume, but it will be deleted. See the related PD section about this issue. Kafziel ^Talk 12:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can argue semantics all you like, but it's going to get deleted if you don't do something about it. Doesn't matter to me, and I probably won't be the one to delete it, but somebody will, and you won't have any recourse. This is copyright law we're talking about here; it's not something we can skate on. Kafziel ^Talk 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Line 2 of the Security and Privacy page of the U.S. Army Center of Military History states Information presented on CMH Online is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes. -Signaleer 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But the Army doesn't own that picture. Just a basic Google search can show you that the artist never worked for the federal government. The Army's website and the Wikipedia tags all make it pretty clear that there are some things that aren't public domain; this is probably one of those. Kafziel ^Talk 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

'PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM THIS PAGE--IT IS QUITE ANNOYING TO COPY AND PASTE THIS INFORMATION REPETIVELY, THANK YOU

Although the Army does not "own" the image, the image is on the Army.mil website and therefore becomes public domain. -Signaleer 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep pasting all this stuff on my talk page? Howcheng left that notice to you, not to me. I posted a clarification on your talk page. See the big yellow notice at the top of my talk page? You can just reply on your own page. I don't need a duplicate of all this stuff pasted here as well. Thanks. Kafziel ^Talk 15:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You think everything the Army touches automatically becomes public domain? Wow. You are absolutely, indefensibly wrong about that. The Army itself even says you're wrong about that. I think you may have misread the quote: "Images on our web site that are in the public domain may be used without permission." It does not say "Images on our web site are in the public domain and may be used without permission." Big, big difference. Kafziel ^Talk 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was coming by to follow up but it seems that Kafziel has already explained most of it to you. If Edna Reindel worked for the Army, or was commissioned by the Army to do this painting, then it would be public domain. The request I made to you was to give us the URL of the web page, which would give us more information than just the URL to the image. I tried to search for the image on Google using "calship burner site:www.army.mil" which turns up nothing, suggesting it's not even being displayed on the site. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that you need to delete this image because it is a violation of the Wiki policy, then by all means, please do so. I've spent enough of my personal time and energy on a moot subject. -Signaleer 07:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So have I. Image deleted. Kafziel ^Talk 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

Dear Kafziel;

I did not violate the "spirit" of the 3RR... Saying such sounds like a non-binding punishment for actions that do not deserve such. I was merely restoring the first line to state fact. If anything violates the 3RR, it is the hair-trigger reaction in false reporting and the constant reverts. Charles 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Maniwar is edit warring as well, and said so in the 3RR report. You are both at fault. You reverted the article 3 times in the last 24 hours. That's an edit war. Kafziel ^Talk 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel that adding my explicit reasoning on the talk page and then restoring the first line is an edit war on my part. Charles 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not really a matter of opinion. Adding your reasoning and then proceeding to revert again and again is an edit war, no matter what your reasons are. A discussion has two sides to it - you leave a message, someone replies, you reply to that, and so on. If you are too impatient to do that, then it's an edit war and you may be blocked. Kafziel ^Talk 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was changed to reflect fact, then the user changed it and began the discussion. As far as I am concerned, I have said all that I need to say on the matter at this point. Diplomacy is moot when a user calls for a 3RR block on no basis. Charles 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus

Thanks, I don't know how we are going to keep that article featured with such fervent POV pushers out there. If left alone that article will turn into a cruft filled pile of crap in no time. Aaron Bowen 00:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is each edit itself doesn't look bad but the big picture is pretty blatant when it comes to that user. Aaron Bowen 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I don't know anything about basketball, but I know four reverts when I see them. Kafziel ^Talk 00:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay he came off his block and he's back at it again, his first edit was to revert against consensus (again) and he blatantly lied in his edit summary:[6] This revert has been reverted by 5 people now and his edit summary was clearly antagonist. Aaron Bowen 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

the choking game

i somehow ended up in the discussion page on the choking game and i added some info on the 2 forms/versions of producing the effect if it helps at all its there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.61.127.241 (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

You mentioned here that I can seek dispute resolution. This is all so frustrating as I'm trying to follow protocol, yet one rogue editor is being allowed to get away with anything and when I try to avoid 3RR, I'm still accused of it. Obviously I'm frustrated, and I acknowledge that, but I stepped back for a couple days and now I would like to know how to seek resolution. I've done an RfC, but no one has commented. What other options can do I have? And also, why is it that the user can, seemingly get away with what he wants to? Is there nothing that can be done? This user has changed the article name without a consensus and reverts anyone who tries to put it back or improve the article factually. On the talk page we are discussing and striving for factual truth, yet the user is at fault of ignoring that. I would appreciate any assistance you could offer as I want to do it right. What would you have done differently and how would you approach it. Thanks for your time! --Maniwar (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

RFCs take time. You only posted it on Saturday, so wait a little while for responses there. If it's still an issue in a few days, you may want to file a Request for mediation. Kafziel ^Talk 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help. --Maniwar (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask me anything, anytime. Kafziel ^Talk 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	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. Ralbot 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Kafziel on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/kafziel. Thanks. --Kafziel ^Talk 12:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of people by name: name Chris

Your speedy-deletion of List of people by name: name Chris is out of process, badly mistaken, and contradicted by the long history of AfD Keep decisions on small LoPbN pages. Please restore immediately, or communicate with me (OK, here will do if it's quick) to avoid action by me there & on DR. Tnx.
--Jerzy•t 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK,

1. i meant WP:DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion review.
2. an emergency has arisen since i left that msg, and i couldn't wait around to discuss even if you were responding.

My position is that your Speedy execution was defective in that you clearly failed to follow the instructions that call for reviewing what lks to a speedy nominee, since you would have seen from that that a number of pages lk to the page in question and it is clearly not a test page. I am undeleting per WP:DP, in the belief this is non-controversial, i.e. that you will agree you were mistaken. If you disagree, you may take it to WP:DRV and hopefully i will find time to respond there. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, man, settle down. I don't have a problem with you undeleting it. Kafziel ^Talk 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your input

Since you've given me good advice before, I hope you won't mind if I ask for your opinion on another matter. In a Discussion page for an article, I've been going back and forth with an editor (over a content/wording) who has grown increasingly uncivil and aggressive. The way I have seen it up until now, I can a) respond in kind and have the thing escalate into an edit war (not an option)
b) ignore the edits, hoping he will calm down and approach the matter more civilly without personal attacks (and run the risk of having a complaint filed for not interacting with my fellow editors)
c) leave the article in disgust (at least three other editors have done this, due to the editor's intransigence), or
d) remove the edits as disruptive personal attacks, asking the editor (both on his Talk Page and in the edit summary for the removal) to rephrase the edits in a more civil manner.

I know what I've done, but I thought I'd get your input, as I tend to agree with both your edgy commentary and sound reasoning. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the discussion. When he first replied to you, it seemed like he wanted the "West" left in. By the end of it, it seems like he's just trying to be Professor Wikipedia and educate everyone about how to use sources. I'm having a hard time figuring out what the conflict is. Is it really not about the content, but just about which citation to use? Or is there more that I'm missing? Kafziel ^Talk 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the source of the dispute is the 'last hope for humanity' bit in the Lead. I have citations stating that the African gal Kee (and her unborn child) is precisely that, and the other editor in question keeps reverting to the edit that says the Human Project is. Towards this end, he cites a reviewer named French, who the editor claims is one of the 10 best film critics alive (citing an Orson Welles memorial site). I am not saying that French has nothing to say, but that he is but one voice that disputes the many that say otherwise.

As well, he asks for citations, and then a few posts later, asks for them again, saying that I "didn't answer his questions." He broke 3RR today through a series of edits that first reverted the primary bone of contention in the Lead, and then dismantled the statements and citations in place that support it. Unfortunately, the only admin to weigh in thus far is Future Perfect as Sunrise, who shouldn't really be weighing in as he is involved in an image dispute that I am party to.

Maybe take a look at some of the posts in the Discussion area (which is where the crux of the problem lies). the user's name is Viriditas. I've reverted some of the posts that were well over the top, but FutPerf reinstated it, suggesting that I be blocked for removing the prior attack edits.

And thanks in advance for taking a look. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough call - I think both versions are good. To be honest, I'd recommend just saving yourself the headache and letting him have his way, and you'll be surprised how trivial it seems in a couple of weeks. But if it's important to you, you can always seek mediation. They might be able to come up with a third option as a compromise. Kafziel ^Talk 22:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Ah, looks like my advice came too late and you've both been blocked. Sorry to see that. Well, hopefully when you both come back you can either drop the issue or seek dispute resolution. Kafziel ^Talk 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I tried asking him to participate in it. He refused each time. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from Viriditas' insertion into this conversation, the problems run fairly deep. I did ot expect him to come here and interrupt our conversation. If you wish to archive or simply blank the sections, please feel free. He doesn't seemn willing to admit that his behavior made the article environment less than optimum. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello to both of you. Arcayne, could you please provide a diff link showing when and where I allegedly "refused" to participate in mediation? To the best of my knowledge, I've never discussed it. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd, I cannot seem to find the post wheerein you said that mediationw asn't needed. Perhaps it was a recollection from another time. However, mediation was suggested on three (1,2, 3). Each time you simply ignored the request. Earlier attempts to suggest mediation (or simple civility) privately on your user Talk page were blanked and decred as trolling. Even when an independent editor (who's mediatory status you acknowledged) weighed in on your civility and personal attack posts, the behavior did not stop. You kept insisting that a film review by French outweighed any other source that suggested arguments to the contrary, your devotion to his authority taking on a rather slavish tone. Not once did I suggest he wasn't a good source, but I did draw the line at removing the input of many other reviewers who suggested a diffeent edit here.

While I cannot seem to find hte edit wehre you said that mediation wasn't necessary (which is really odd, as I am pretty sure you said it), we are left with three different requests to have some mediation take place, specifically MedCab (as Third Opinion and personal contact on you Talk page utterly failed to yield results) and you have pointedly ignored these suggestions and requests. You have specifically ignored the pointed advice of an uninvolve4d editor to improve the tone of your posts to avoid personal attacks and uncivility (ie, addressing edits instead of editors). You have been presented with over a dozen citations that say something contrary to what you appear to wnt them to say, and you clearly pretend they were never mentioned, or denigrate one or two (the Blockbuster cite is but one example, as it quotes in a readily verifiable format the review from a difficult-to-obtain news source). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, colleague. Per WP:TALK let us stay objective and deal with facts. Let us also be brief and to the point out of respect to Kafziel, whom I hope doesn't mind us using his talk page as neutral ground (If this kind user decides to move this discussion to a subpage, I will understand). Arcayne, I will address all of your points and questions in context, as I hope you will mine. We should strive for closure on each point before moving on to the next one, so that we can create a foundation for our discourse and learn from each other, striving for the ideal of mutual understanding and consensus. Now, let us return to my original query and move on to the other topics you have raised, as well as to points I have not yet brought to the table:

• At 01:18, on 3 May 2007 (UTC) you claimed that I would not bother with mediation and stated that I insisted I was right.[7]
• At 17:22, on 8 May 2007 (UTC), you said, "Viriditas has refused to engage in DR or mediation by a impartial third party." [8]
• At 22:52, on 8 May 2007 (UTC) you claimed that you requested mediation, and that I refused. [9]
• At 23:48, on 9 May 2007 (UTC), you stated that I refused to participate in mediation [10]
• At 23:57, on 9 May 2007 (UTC), I posted a query on User talk:Kafziel asking you provide diffs backing up your allegation(s). [11]
• At 03:47, on 10 May 2007 (UTC), you replied to my query dated 23:57, 9 May 2007 with the following: "Odd, I cannot seem to find the post wheerein you said that mediationw asn't needed. Perhaps it was a recollection from another time." [12]

Are we in agreement as to the veracity of the aforementioned diffs, and if so, is it reasonable to suggest that you were mistaken to claim in four separate instances that I refused mediation? And as to your statement that your inability to find diffs for these allegations arose from a "recollection from another time", may I also suggest that this recollection is mistaken as well for the following reason: 99% of our discussion has taken place on Talk:Children of Men and nowhere else. A search of this page and its archives reveals no supporting diffs. Can I then reasonably and in good faith conclude that your allegation was false, and that you were mistaken? If so, should I expect an apology, and a forthcoming reply to the above articles correcting your previous claim? If not, what do you propose? Let us seek closure on this topic and move on to the next one as time permits. —Viriditas | Talk 07:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Diffs provided earlier specifically asked that you pursue mediation. Non-response is very much the same as both ambivalence and non-acceptance. I cannot find the Diff wehre you said it wasn't necessary; I might have been mistaken on that (although I am not usually wrong about such things). The fact that you ignored such queries in both the Discussion page as well as your Talk page speak volumes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Please take a look at WP:TALK and WP:AGF. The topic of "mediation" was never under discussion, and your assumptions as to what I have "ignored" appear to be based on non-existent diffs. Everyone makes mistakes, Arcayne. Do you think it's time to let this go and chalk it up to false assumptions on your part? Or, should I light a candle and hope that OJ you will continue looking for the real killers diffs? —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to illustrate my points for me. You might want to read the Diffs again, wherein I suggested you seek mediation. You ignored them. I agree that everyone makes mistakes. Unfortunately, you are demonstrating that learning from them is a bit hard. Honestly, comparing me to OJ? lol, what a clownish tactic. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:TALK. Mediation was not the topic we were discussing, so how could I ignore it? I wasn't comparing you to OJ, Arcayne, I was making a joke. And I got a "lol" from you, so I was apparently successful. —Viriditas | Talk 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You compared me to someone who committed a double homicide. I wasn't laughing at the "joke," I was laughing at the uncivility of the comparison. Being a fool doesn't make one funny. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed in most discussions and even in edits to articles that you take things literally instead of figuratively when they are used in ironic or metaphorical contexts. I'm sorry you feel this way, but the expression permeates American popular culture and is found everywhere outside of its original usage. —Viriditas | Talk 13:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Having claimed to have noticed this, why would you specifically attempt to antagonize me, except to get a rise out of me? The OJ comment may be a jest in your circle, but you and I don't have the sort of relationship where your jests are going to be interpreted int he best light. Frankly, half the time you respond here, you only serve to reinforce those claims about your bad behavior. I am not interested in your clowning about; I asked an experienced admin to adivse me on how to deal with your behavior. You chose to insert yourself into the conversation. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize; I wasn't trying to upset you in any way. —Viriditas | Talk 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Perhaps you might find that utilizing some empathy before you post uncivil remarks or personal attacks will serve you a great deal both within and without Wikipedia. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume that I don't utilize empathy. Also, please keep in mind that your remarks have not been all that civil. First rule of talk pages is to avoid talking about the editor; just talk about the edits. —Viriditas | Talk 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't come here to discuss with this admin the edits in question; I came to discuss how to respond to your abrasive personality issues. In point of fact, it was your continued personal attacks in the Discussion page of the article - ie, discussing me and not the edits - which prompted my seeking advice elsewhere, as you pointedly ignored attempts to defuse the situation (Erik did come in and ask you to back off the uncivil behavior; you ignored him as well). My recent remarks on the Discussion page have been entirely civil; perhaps doing so only encouraged you to be more aggressive. I am not sure. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Who has been abrasive in this discussion between the two of us? And, since I responded to Erik's comments, I don't see how I could have "ignored" him. I suggest actually reading WP:CIV. You may be quite surprised. —Viriditas | Talk 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I am not suggesting that I haven't vented pent-up anger at your behavior here; I certainly am doing so. I just haven't done so in my recetn edits in the article Discussion. And you may have responded to Erik's post, but you didn't address it, as your behavior continued unabated. And you might find it extremely useful in your education in empathy to not assume that people who disagree with you do so out of ignorance. I know the pertinent rules of Wikipedia, and am rather well aware of the policy on civility. I think you would be hard put to find even two consecutive diffs of posts to me where you indicated a fuller knowledge of that particular rule than I.

Are you suggesting that your posts were perfectly civil and not personal attacks? Hint: that is a yes or no question. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the veneer of civility you describe is negated by your comments and editing behavior. If you had actually read WP:CIV you wouldn't have claimed to have adhered to it. You clearly didn't and don't. —Viriditas | Talk 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being evasive and answer the question, Viriditas. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I already had. Since we both admitted to edit warring, de facto incivility is assumed. —Viriditas | Talk 14:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that was noit the question asked. I would like you to simply answer yes or no: are you suggesting that your posts were civil and not personal attacks? Edit warring can simply refer to reverting each other's edits. Your behavior is what we are addressing here - the topic of edit-warring was already concluded. Please answer the question as asked, Viriditas. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars are a breach of WP:EQ which is in and of itself a violation of WP:CIV. Have you read that page? —Viriditas | Talk 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is not an answer to the question, Viriditas. I will re-phrase the question: are you suggesting that your posts on the Discussion page were not personal attacks? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is because of disingenuous questions like this that WP:CIV and WP:WQ are so important. Argue facts. If you have a particular edit you would like to discuss, then provide the diff. I'm taking a bit of a break now, so I'll look for your diffs later. —Viriditas | Talk 15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is precisely the sort of behavior I am referring to, Viriditas. You ask people questions and bitch them out when you feel they don't give complete answers. Yet, when the same is asked of you, you attempt to weasel out of a direct answer. If you cannot or won't answer the question as posed, we will have to assume that you either do not understand the question as phrased (and rephrased) or are afraid at admitting you have acted inappropriately. Allow me to spare you that fear: I know you have been such, and am just hoping you are able to see that yourself and can admit it. If you cannot see where you are wrong, there is absolutely no point in you saying another word, as mediation actually works when both parties are willing to admit they've made mistakes. Now, please answer the question as asked, without diversionary tactics. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Argue facts. If you have an edit you would like to discuss, please provide the diff. —Viriditas | Talk 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing facts; you are simply choosing to avoid answering a question about behavior that spans multiple edits. You may answer the question, admitting or denying your personal attacks. Please understand that this coinversation will go no further without you answering the question as put. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have covered this already. If you have an edit you would like to discuss, please offer the diff. See WP:TPG. I cannot discuss the topic without them. Thank you for your understanding. —Viriditas | Talk 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have ot answered what seems (to me) to be a very simple question, in case you forgot it amidst your tap-dancing around the subject: Are you suggesting that your posts were perfectly civil and not personal attacks? Is there some reason you do not want to directly answer the question? Are you now saying that you would like a Diff for your personal attack posts? I mean, if that's what you really want, I could post them here - I'm just worried about how much space this would take up. Is that what you really, realy want me to do - point out each instance of your uncivil behavior and persoanl attacks?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Arcayne, I think it is important that we speak the same language and use the same terms with the basic understanding that words mean something. On 22:52, 8 May 2007, shortly after the both of us were blocked, you requested an unblock where you made many claims.[13] Since we are dealing with one claim per topic, I would like to discuss the concept of edit warring. The following diffs are a brief, selective sample record of relevant events listed by edit summary, focusing on a select number of edits by Arcayne due to the claims made in the unblock request. There may be other diffs that are applicable, or not:

• At 05:21, on 7 May 2007 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (49,740 bytes) (rv edit based on sources - info in lead matches info in section, not "blog")
• At 10:36, on 7 May 2007 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (50,543 bytes) (rv remvoal of cited references)
• At 21:29, on 7 May 2007 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (50,812 bytes) (undo vandalism by Viriditas)
• At 10:03, on 8 May 2007 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (50,812 bytes) (rv POV-pushing edits, reinstating fully-cited prior edit)
• At 13:39, on 8 May 2007 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (50,032 bytes) (rv to last version by Arcayne (129201950); rm unresolved external link, ce to improve (and include reasoned viewpoints))
• At 21:18, on 8 May 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) blocked "Arcayne (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring on Children of Men.)
• At 22:52, on 8 May 2007 Arcayne posetd an unblock request on his talk page stating, "I would submit that i have not edit-warred." [14]

According to the edit war guideline (WP:EW), "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article." By that definition, we, that is, Viriditas and Arcayne, were engaged in an edit war. Do you agree, Arcayne? If not, why not? —Viriditas | Talk 08:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have more forcefully insisted that you submit to mediation; however, I don't know how more forcefully I could have insisted (three times seems to be quite a bit in less than a week). As I attempted on numerous occasions to answer each of your questions (excepting those posts which were more uncivil attack than enquiry and deleted as disruptive, per WP:POINT), I found you increasingly combative and resistant to reasoned discussion. As the article was incorrectly representing the cited sources, and you seemed to have an unseemly bias towards a specific, minor opinion, reverting the changes, or seeking different wordings appeared to be the only recourse avilable left to me. As you kept reverting back to your (incorrect) edits, I guess we were edit-warring.

My conscience is rather clear though; I wasn't the one disrupting matters. You were the one who was making personal attacks in Discussion and being pretty much uncivil - I can recall on one hand the times when I have had a civil post from you since knowing you. You have accused me - without basis - with sock and meat-puppetry (chasing away a perfectly civil new editor). You ask for people to cite sources for statements, and even after they are provided, you ask for them again a post or two later. You demand that people reference archives for decisions made months earlier, failing to recongize that Consensus is not a static quality within Wikipedia.

You have not once AGF with me, and that continuous cantankerous behavior and OWN-ish attitude has been commented on by more than one editor. You - by any definition - created a hostile editing environment, and burned a great many of those bridges that I and others attempted to build towards a compromise with you. In fact, this is in fact the first time I can recall when you haven't insulted me in a post in recent memory. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to address all of your points, on a topic by topic basis. Right now, I'm discussing the topic of edit warring in general. Do you agree that you and I engaged in an edit war, and that this edit war led to a 24 hour block on our accounts? Yes or no, please? —Viriditas | Talk 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you ask questions for which the answer was provided. Might I suggest that you actually read my posts, rahter than using them to craft a retailiatory response? Hint: first paragraph, last sentence. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"I guess we were edit-warring." Ok. Then we are in complete agreement on this. We were edit warring. I guess this thread is over. On to the next one... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Other editors

Arcayne, you have repeatedly claimed that "at least three other editors have (left Children of Men)" due to what you call my "intransigence".[15] Who are these three editors and where can I find the diffs verifying this statement? I would like to know who I have offended so I can apologize to them. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not going to drag other editors into this. You seem to have a selective memory in this regard, having made the same claim about me. We'll keep the circle small at this point. I left the article twice after your abusive behavior nearly turned me off to Wikipedia altogether. It was only after learning that your "style" of editing (I think one editor, who wrote me offline, hit the nail on the head by calling you a bully) was an abberration, and not the norm that I decided to return and help fix the article that I had begun with. I don't expect an apology from you, as I am fairly convinced you feel that those who disagree with you are not worthy of apology. I know that sounds harsh, but you have had months - years even - to address your behavior after having received advice from numerous other, talented and wise editors (and no, I am not necessarily including myself in this group), with no resultant change in how you treat others. Consequently, I have very little respect for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it that's a no, you don't have the diffs. It's good to hear that the lurkers support you in e-mail. You're absolutely right, I did make the same claim about you, and I have diffs to prove it. I don't see how that will help either of us. Is it safe to say this particular topic is closed, or would you like to speculate a little more about what you think I believe and feel? Is there any particular reason you prefer to imagine fantasies rather than discuss actual things? I just finished saying that I would like to know who I have offended so I can apologize to them, and you wrote in reply, "I am fairly convinced you feel that those who disagree with you are not worthy of apology." Is it just silly old me, or are you having difficulty reading and understanding what I wrote above? —Viriditas | Talk 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear; yes, other editors did abandon the article because of your behavior. No, I will not involve them in this. And yes, it is "silly ol you" assuming yet again that someone isn't reading the other's posts. See the section above where you chose to ignore the answer you asked for twice, andhad to have the pattern of your selective vision pointed out. Quite clearly, if you cannot recognize your own isolating behavior, I cannot hold your hand through learning how to reduce or eliminate it. I am unqualified to render psychological advice on why you behave the way you do. I can only note the actual behavior. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing that you can't support your claims with evidence, I don't suppose there is anything for me to say, other than to observe that once again, you are lacking diffs. Please try to discuss the topic with evidence, if you can. And, once again you have chosen to invent fantasies and wax poetic about what you think I believe or feel, and what others think, believe or feel. Could we discuss actual things please, and not flights of fancy? I never "chose to ignore the answer you asked for twice"; I asked for a yes or no because you answered "I guess", and I wanted to be sure that was a yes. I'm still not sure, but I have accepted your evasive answer as a yes in any case. —Viriditas | Talk 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my unwillingness to involve others as an inability to do so. And thank you for once again proving you cannot accept criticism without making personal attacks. Please do not accept this as such, but I must ask: are you a minor? If so, it would excuse your antisocial behavior as just being a youth, and render a great deal of this conversation as moot. If you are not a minor, then I guess we can continue. I just don't want to debate children, and I don't know if anyone has asked before. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can accept good criticism, which is why I asked for evidence. Your question about my age is quite humorous considering your immature comments above. Please try to criticize the edits, not the editor. —Viriditas | Talk 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer the question, please.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, above. Criticize the edits, not the editor. —Viriditas | Talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not the question, Viriditas. You were asked if you were a minor, as an answer in the affirmative would render this conversation moot; I do not debate children. And I would ask you not to suggest that I comment on the edits and not the editor - you inserted yourself into this conversation I was having with an admin about your behavior, not your edits. For someone who has been asked repeatedly to do just that in the article discussion, it seems quite hypocritical for you to suggest that now. Answer the question as posed, please. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

According to your initial conversation, you were discussing my edits on the talk page and in the edit summary. Your insinuation that I am a child is a breach of civility. Have you actually read WP:CIV? For what it's worth, you were uncivil on Talk:Children of Men before I even began contributing to that article. I don't even think you realize it. —Viriditas | Talk 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking the question (which you are still avoiding answering) to be uncivil. I am asking because it is pointless to debate matters of behavior with children; their own parents are best suited to that particular task. If you are a child, I can take that into consideration when dealing with your personal attacks and uncivil behavior. If you are not a child, then this is a matter that can continue. I do find it rather interesting that you are failing to answer any question deliberately put to you, attempting instead to deflect matters elsewhere. For the third time, answer the question, please. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please argue facts about edits; do not speculate about the age, psychological disposition, and general personality of editors. I'm taking a break now, but when I return I hope you have taken the time to read WP:CIV and WP:WQ. I am not interested in "debating matters of behavior" with you, as I have made clear time and time again. Wikipedia policies and guidelines have already set these standards, so there is nothing to debate. I am, however, concerned about the quality of edits being made to Children of Men. When I asked why you reverted my most recent edits to the article, you refused to respond. Perhaps you are still thinking of a good answer. —Viriditas | Talk 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

...and thank you again for illustrating your behavior. My question remains; I am not going to debate matters of behavior with a minor? Of course, you are aware that dodging an answer is itself an answer. We will continue this discussion when you decide to answer the question. I know WP policies as well as you and - judging from many of your responses in the article Discussion page, likely somewhat better than yourself. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Argue facts, not personalities. —Viriditas | Talk 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am arguing the fact that your editing behavior implies a much, much younger personality at work. It is Wikipedia policy to cut our younger editors a bit more slack, as their personalitues are not quite fully formed or socially adept as of yet. You may answer the question as put, but any attempt to sidetrack the discussion into any other sort of argument will be met with the same question. This is not about edits to CoM; this is about your responses to those edits in both the article and the Discussion page, as well as your talk page behavior. If I am dealing with a minor, I think it would be good for me to know that before continuing to assume that I am dealing with an adult who knows how to reason and respond accurately to criticism. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel the need to keep fishing for personal information and discuss non-content issues. Your statement, "I am arguing the fact that your editing behavior implies a much, much younger personality at work" is a personal attack. See WP:PA. "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." Please comment on the content, not the contributor. When you feel ready to discuss edits and not editors, I will gladly participate. Until then, please argue facts (such as diffs), not personalities. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my inquiry as to whether you are a minor or not is not a personal attack - if you are such a person, this conversation is done, as I do not debate youngsters. If you perceived a slight out of that request, you have my apologies. It is certainly not intended as such. I am asking because if you are a minor, I am deriving an unfair advantage in conversations about maturity. I don't want to know your age, Viriditas. I really don't want to know anything about you. However, it occurred to me that we might be disconnecting because I am an adult and you are a child. I guess I have to infer from your evasiveness both her and in the mediation section that you are demonstratingthe sorts of behaviors one often sees in some of our younger people. If you aren't a minor, then I tender my apologies, but until you say, point blank (call it my Essjay guarantee) that you aren't a minor, I am going to assume that by your repeated evasions that you are. As I said before, I don't debate children. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

From where I stand, it looks like you keep changing the subject. This section is about your unsubstantiated claim that three editors left the article because of me. Since you cannot provide diffs for this assertion, I will assume that it was false, along with your false claims concerning my "refusal to mediate" and my use of "uncited content". So, unless you can address your failure to support your allegations, there is no need for you to attempt to change the subject again. —Viriditas | Talk 00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncited comtent

Arcayne, you have claimed several times that I have been "reinstating uncited statements" [16]; that I have been "reverting content without citing references" [17]; that I have "sought to include uncited (and then maintain) uncited information"[18]; that I was engaged in "reverting cited information with - again - uncited information" [19]; and that I was "the only person offering uncited data needing reversion" [20]. You also went on to claim that I "alter citations in such a way that is not supported by citation" [21]. Could I ask you to be so kind as to provide diffs for these serious accusations? Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So you expect me to answer your questions when you refuse (and being evasive equals refusal) to answer mine? When you start answering my questions, I will consider answering yours. Don't bother responding unless it consists of simple answers to the questions posed earlier. Until then, we are done speaking. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What questions and what answers? Either you can support your allegations with diffs or you can't. So far, you can't. I suppose it's a question of whether your claims can be substantiated, and if not, what does that say about you? I've answered every question that has direct relevance to the encylopedia, and can be checked and verified with the use of diffs. Off-topic, unencyclopedic questions that lack diffs and are based on opinion aren't up for discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Time out

Sorry, I wasn't on today because I had an all-day corporate team building seminar at the office. Looks like that was bad timing. But since you both have been going back and forth pretty well without me for the last 24 hours or so, can you move this conversation to one of your talk pages? If you still want my input, I can look in a little later when I get caught up with everything else and have time to read all this. Kafziel ^Talk 00:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Unfortunately, I have issues with Arcayne's removal of content from talk pages (and manipulation of archival content) so could you recommend a better venue with neutral oversight? Would you be willing to watch this as a subpage in your user space? I know its asking a lot, but Arcayne trusts you, and I was impressed with the neutrality of your comments. Any chance we can adopt you as our informal mediator, as time permits for you? Thanks in advance. —Viriditas | Talk 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Institute of National Remembrance

Perhaps you could try to mediate between the sides of the conflict?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not much of a mediator: I tend to make things worse. I also don't have much knowledge about the specific subjects you guys are having problems with. While I know Vlad's aggressive editing can be annoying (choose any of his edits on any article at random and it will probably be part of an edit war), I don't know for certain that he's wrong. Since more than two people are involved, 3rd Opinion is out, so I'd recommend a request to the cabal instead. You'll get much better results from them than you will from me.

Most importantly, just try to distance yourself from this stuff as much as you can. Take a wikibreak if you need to. Edit wars like this won't help your ArbCom case, and I don't want to see you desysopped or anything. Kafziel ^Talk 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I am not going to abuse my admin powers, nor I ever had, so I don't worry about desysopping :) But I will not allow ArbCom case threat to stop me from my normal editing - otherwise some of my opponents could just get rid of me by ArbComming me for the entire year :> Besides, changing my behaviour because of ArbCom would indicate I have something to hide and/or I did/am doing something wrong, which is not what I believe. ArbCom should rule on my and others behaviour as it is and always was, for better or worse.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen

I don't care WHO you are! I run things in this town! ME! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barney Johnson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

What? Do you need a Diaper?

A, you wanna job? Barney Johnson 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Kafziel, Thank you for your kind words of support. I was about to call it quites, especially after seeing desrespectful atitute of User: Tony Sidaway. However, after witnessing the overwhelming support from those who know me and even those who have never interacted with me before, made me change my mind. My admin powers were restored. Once again thank you. By the way, what is that guy's (The one above me) problem? Take care. Tony the Marine 08:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad everything worked out for you, and that you decided to stay. Considering how forgiving the community was with Buick Century Driver, it would be really unfair to screw over the people who didn't do anything malicious at all.

Oh, and that guy above me is just your average disgruntled vandal. Kafziel ^Talk 00:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NBA records

Yeah I know, you should probably protect his talk page again he just did a personal attack against me. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. Kafziel ^Talk 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Argh, Tyrus issues

Sorry to bother you. I'm sure you're already aware of Tyrus's uncivil and bias behavior. I'd like to just alert you to this article: Career achievements of Dwyane Wade. The comments I made on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf extend to this article as well. He reverts these statistics, because he deems them arbitrary. But, as we have discussed on other pages, they are notable...and the page itself is for detailed statistics. I'm not looking to get into a edit war with him, but he seems to be baiting editors. Incidently, similar statistics are listed on Jordan's page, but he doesn't edit those out. Just more evidence of his biases on Wiki. Just thought I'd alert you to another article he seems to be attacking. Hopefully that RFC resolves everything...although I'm not sure why he hasn't commented there? Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, he won't be doing anything for a week. If you suspect sockpuppetry, let me know. Kafziel ^Talk 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the notification =) Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 01:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback requested

In spite of your discouragement, I've made another attempt at what I am trying to post, but posted it at the end of my talk page. Could you take a look and let me know if this might be acceptable? I've tried to model it off of the entry for Rehabilitation counseling. Thanks. Kmilchus 03:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the right to delete everything that people try to put up. I think you need to get a life. The person that I wrote about is famous...just google it. (signed squiggly lines? there is no squiggly lines on the keyboard so how are people supposed to do that?)

Newly industrialized country update - your help needed in Developed country‎

Hi Kafziel, Thanks for your help on NIC. That page had an update as GCC countries were found not be NIC at the end. But now the article is fine and Alex made a nicer map. Seems there is need for your help in Developed_country#Other_parts_of_the_world. There are two problems: 1. Alex and someone else are having serious trouble. Seems the other user is not bringing reference... 2. The whole section is OR in my view. There are countries mentioned there as "likely to join the ranks of developed nations" without giving refrence for it.. thanksFarmanesh 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked both users for violating 3RR. Hopefully that will encourage discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

oh I didn't mean blocking them, I ment helping them. I feel maybe they didn't know about 3RR and a serious warning would have been preventive enough. Maybe you can consider unblocking them and giving them the chance to talk with them. Alex just started talking on article's talk page (they were talking before on their talk pages).Farmanesh 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Alex for 3RR before; he knows better. And Felipe doesn't seem to mind the cool-off period. It was either that or lock the article, which I didn't want to do since other people are working on it, too. It's only 24 hours, just enough for a wakeup call. I know part of the problem is the language barrier, though, so I'm not sure how much good discussion will do anyway. It's unfortunate that it had to come to blocks/protection in the first place, but it took the same heavy hand to get things done at Newly industrialized country. I'm sure we'll get it worked out eventually. Kafziel ^Talk 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I think the whole section they are fighting on is OR. They need to fix the main problem as to bring basic reference for their country to be there.Farmanesh 20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing at North America

Hello. I noticed that you blocked a certain acquaintance. Perhaps relatedly, please observe what is happening at North America. AC recently added this tidbit about it being considered a 'subcontinent', it has been removed and readded anonymously recently. I decided to tweak it to hark of similar content at South America, and haven't deleted anything of substance, elsewhere in the article, or unsourced. Guess what? An anonymous editor again readds and maintain this information. Note the consistent misspelling of 'Aditionally'. I strongly suspect that the anonymous IPs which have continually added this information are one and the same as the suspected puppetmaster. This is improper, no? Please take action or provide counsel. Thanks. Corticopia 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? When you are blocked, the block log say something like this "Account creation blocked, Anon. only", meaning you are allowed to edit only anonimously and not to use your account. That's not sockpuppetry, I am not "trying to hide" behind my IP, other way I would have never write here. Also, it is very obvious it was ME, why would I deny it? I never did and I'm not gonna do it now. This is just sad C.

However, you must know about sockpuppetry, right Corticopia? Or should I say (links to the contributions page of every account):

• aka E Pluribus Anthony
• aka Lucky Mustard
• aka A the 0th
• aka Cogito ergo sumo (after being retired he came back with this acc)
• aka Ex post factoid (after the sockpuppetry case, he tried to return with his acc, but was caught)
• aka Corticopia (his last full return)

Kaf, just take a look at the sockpuppetry case against E Pluribus (number 1) and to the second E Pluribus sockpuppetry case (number 2) but most importantly, check every single account BLOCK LOG and CONTRIBUTIONS. As admins know (and as stated in the sockpuppetry page), persons that use these practices always use edit summaries and have the same edit pattern.

You will see the same edit pattern in all of those accounts, for instance articles such as:

• North America
• Continent
• Georgia
• Cyprus
• Canada (and articles related)
• Lieutenant-Governor (Canada)
• Central America
• Isaac Asimov (and articles related such as Data, Star Trek...) and his sci-fi creations.
• And many more...

Then look at Corticopia's first edit and all his edit pattern.

Sadly I opened my mouth too soon when he came back [22] when I tried let other users know about Corticopia being the same person that came back to spread his bias and hate against Mexico and other countries (and stubbornly try to tag it as a "Central American" country), so I kinda prevent him from making that "mistake" again, he was very smart and stoped editing anything related to Isaac Asimov... but every other single article he edits is consistent with the edit pattern of the other accounts. I guess he was not very smart at the end of the day.

He's from Toronto, Canada. Guess what? Look up the IP of the other "anonimous editor" that kept erasing the fact that North America is also a subcontinent. Yeah! You're right! Those IPs are from Toronto, Canada. It is not surprising. Look at the North America talk page, first message. I left a warning note there about him and his past accounts and his repeated anon. edits from IPs from Toronto.

Yeah, that's right. As I already say, you must think everybody is like you. Sorry Kaf for this loooong message, but I think it was the time to demask Corticopia and his past. After all, he's the one that tried to "accuse" me of something HE DID and I believe he still does in the Isaac Asimov related pages (with another acc. of course). Thanks. 189.154.54.198 10:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC) (meaning AlexCovarrubias).

Throughout this verbiage, which I won't comment on, AC has forgotten a few important things. First, technically, the editor(s) AC listed above were never blocked as a result of sockpuppetry, and that editor merely moved on to different accounts for whatever reasons (and AC's accusations were dismissed partially because of that). Importantly, in this instance, AC has continued to edit anonymously and admitted it -- including recently, while self-identifying -- in evasion of his current 3RR block (both in the name and article-space), while this editor has not. (Note that I'm not blocked.) Need I say more? Corticopia 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you "didn't comment on this". Oh wait, you just did. Nice defense, I'm sure "the other guy" would be honored... How hypocritical. Whatever, those proofs are crystal clear. Just check at the language used, the changes you wanted to introduce in every article (especially Cyprus, Georgia, and Governor of Canada, and of course Central America and Mexico), and even the edit summary style, the aggressive language, etc. Crystal clear. Sorry again Kaf. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Oh! do you know Portuguese? on what grounds you realised that it is a "personal" attack? which sentense? However, if you don't know Portuguese, keep your mouth shut! 74.14.122.64 23:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Babelfish makes it pretty easy. Kafziel ^Talk 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: OK

Thanks. I disbelieve that he knew not to edit anonymously while being blocked -- since he seems to know everything else -- while pushing here-nor-there edits, but you're the admin.

As well, I apologise for the copyediting of statements; I typically stop that once someone has responded. I must use the preview feature more; a personal failing. :) Corticopia 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

Your Barnstar Was EATEN BY A BEAR!

For the way you blocked this user.

Omega Archdoom^Talk 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war in Metropolis

Kaf, as you once said to me, the best way to solve an edit war is by not starting one. Well, I guess Corticopia is "angry" because of the message I left above (I guess). My point is that he is starting an edit war in Metropolis. He changed the whole geographical arrangement of the page to (as usual) exclude Mexico from being "seen together with the US and Canada". He changed the page to introduce another geographical model in which Mexico is not in "North America" but in "Middle America", despiste the fact that model is rarely used in Wikipedia. The article has never used that model, and almost by convention every other single article doesn't use that "model", but the regular 7 continents.

He's not following his own logical. One example, in the article "North America" he refuses my introduction of a text until "I can reach a consensus with the other editors", but in these page metropolis, he just changed the whole article. So, that's just a provocation from my point of view. Can you please do something? I don't want to be accused of "edit warring" when I never start that things. Again, as you said, the best way to solve an edit war, is by not starting one, and he's certainly starting one. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh time off! I made a mistake, it was not Corticopia the one that introduced that model, but User:23prootie. What I find strange is 23prootie changed the layout to the Latin American view (North America, Central America and South America). Both Corticopia and I reverted his edits. Now, he changed the page to use this rare model (Northern America, Middle America). That's wierd since he was trying to independently list Central American countries. Well, I have a suspicion... but that's just me. I guess I'll just wait to see how things develop. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of Jessdro

Hi, you recently blocked Jessdro indefinitely. This is the user's first block and this user had not even received a full set of warnings. Without a doubt the user deserved to be blocked, and I'm not second guessing the "call on the field" in that regard. Now that there is time for reflection, however, might you consider reducing the duration to a more standard first block of 24-72 hours or something? If I missed something in my review please let me know. --Selket ^Talk 05:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested un-Protection of the Dominion of Canada re-direct

Hello Kafziel. I am requesting that you consider un-protecting the Dominion of Canada re-direct page. I wish to openly debate the effective banning on Wikipedia of the term the Dominion of Canada. I promise not to summarily edit the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominion_of_Canada&redirect=no

This issue is very important to me, and would be grateful if you would consider my request.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This, just hours after you tried to unilaterally move Kingdom of Great Britain to United Kingdom of Great Britain? I've now protected that redirect as well, and I'm certainly not unprotecting Dominion of Canada.

The talk page is not protected. I don't see what having the article page unprotected has to do with discussion. Come back when you can show me consensus. Kafziel ^Talk 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Kaf, I find it really offensive that everybody can see that anon. IP user is adding unsourced information and you come to me and tell me I'm gonna be blocked for reverting his/her changes. What about that? What are you gonna do to stop him/her from adding unsourced information? Isn't your duty as an admin to stop vandals? Or adding unsourced information is not a type of vandalism?

What do you suggest me to do? I mean if the answer is not reverting his/her changes and the person refuses to add soruces (or just enter with a diff IP), then what can I do? I left a message for every anon. IP, did you notice the IP is from the same town in Germany?

I also requested the page to be semi-protected. However, if trying to talk to the person is not working, then what an editor like me is suppoused to do? Please tell me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding unsourced information is not vandalism. This is not an article about a living person, so you can't just delete unsourced information over and over again. Place a {{fact}} tag (I know you know who to use them - the issue of fact tags is how we first met) and discuss with the other editor. You are not free to break 3RR for any reason. I will, however, be willing to semi-protect the page if after a few days and a few more tries, the other editor is not willing to discuss the changes at all. Kafziel ^Talk 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand all of that, the problem here is the other anon. editor is changing the whole table and adding another way to measure GDP per capita, when there is already one way to measure it and sourced. His changes are unsourced so, is one supposed to add the fact tags just because the other editor changes the info? I mean, the other info was already ok, why to add the tags when you know for a fact the info the other editor deleted is right and sourced. I hope you see my point. Suggest me what to do! AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You just have to talk it over. Here's an example of what you should do in a situation like this:

1. You like the article the way it is
2. Someone changes it with no sources
3. You can change it back (once) to the version with sources
4. Someone changes it again
5. You leave the article the way it is, add fact tags, and leave them a message asking for sources.
6. If they have not replied after a day, you can change it back the next day.
7. If they come back again to change it, leave it and repeat step 5. Do not get angry or accuse them of vandalism.
8. If they still will not discuss it, ask someone for help. For instance, at that point I would be willing to semi-protect the page. Or if the person is a registered user, you can ask someone to help you talk to them.

All these steps means that sometimes the article will be stuck in a version you do not like, but if you do things this way you will not get blocked and you will get more people on your side. If you are patient, you have a better chance of getting your way. Kafziel ^Talk 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok Kaf, thank you so much for your suggestions, I'll take them into consideration the next time I have a problem with somebody adding unsourced information. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

The user AlexCovarrubias keeps reverting the edits of the following articles: Newly industrialized country, Regional powers, Developed country, Brazil, and many others... a quick look at his "contributions" and at the history of those pages are evidence to that. He has been blocked and warned before but he insists in doing this. Please help. Thanks. Limongi 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

tricky discussion

We're having a bit of a tricky discussion because we have very different ideas about what's going on and about what should happen.

So we're currently at a point where we're only agreeing (or violently agreeing) 1 time out of 10, 8 times out of 10 I'm just going "well, no, that wasn't really what I was thinking of in the first place", and 1 time out of 10, I'm honestly missing or forgetting an argument. ^^;;

I hope we can find common ground soon.

Apologies that this is so frustrating, but at the same time, thank you so much for your patience so far. --Kim Bruning 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
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. Ralbot 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued Block of Jessdro

Hello. Your actions in the case of Jessdro (whom you blocked indefinitely) have come to my attention via a plea by the user. You stated that if he could show three helpful edits, you would reduce the duration of his block. He did so, and yet he's still blocked. Perhaps you forgot to unblock him? I think in the interest of fairness, you should act on this.
– Juansidious 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he only made 2. I didn't feel rubbing that in would be productive, so I didn't comment further. But I'll lift the block for now. Kafziel ^Talk 02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Interactions on your talk page

(Copied and pasted from User talk:Signaleer)

Please refrain from attacking other users as you did here. Editing Wikipedia can be frustrating, but it's important to keep a cool head. Labelling other editors trolls is counterproductive, and behavior like that can get you blocked if it keeps up. There's no need to get bent out of shape so quickly; if something seems unfair or improper to you, take the time to find out the other person's reasoning. They might know something you don't. Kafziel ^Talk 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, it's okay for other users to attack me on their "talk history page" but it's not okay for them to do the same [23][24], I strongly encourage you to look into problems before you start making accusations or threats. Furthermore, the user RJHall demonstrated to me Troll like behavior therefore I did accuse him of being a troll, I also highly encourage you to look at the discussion that was on my talk page and the bavhior he displayed on his. I have also observed that you have demonstrated to exercise your blocking power as an administrator quite frequently, sometimes without any warnings. Please collect all your G-2 before making such accusations in the future. -Signaleer 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Flying off the handle for no reason. I didn't make any threats; I gave you a warning. Behavior like that can get you blocked if it keeps up. See your little "sometimes without warnings" comment? Well, that was your warning.

I actually exercise my "blocking power" quite less frequently than most. People often get pissed at me for not blocking the editors they want me to, and I spend most of my time working on speedy deletions, not anti-vandalism. I just wanted to encourage you to try harder when interacting with others. Kafziel ^Talk 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverts at Latin America

(I tried to post this a little while ago, but just noticed that I'd got caught in an edit conflict, so it didn't appear...) Hi. I see you've had contacts with User:AlexCovarrubias before, so I thought I'd drop you a line. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but have been spending some time trying to clear up and improve coverage on Latin America. (See my contribs. There's a long way to go.) On the page Latin America itself, several times now I've run into problems as User:AlexCovarrubias puts back information that I've edited out, reverting or effectively reverting. I've tried to explain my rationale both on his user page and at Talk:Latin America, but he doesn't seem particularly keen on such discussion or generally on collaboration. Any advice on how to proceed? Again, I'm new here so general advice is also helpful. And I don't expect editing Wikipedia to be plain sailing, but this is rather frustrating. --Jbmurray 07:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not several times, two times, one when you deleted several important authors and the second time when you deleted a real important description of Mexican film industry, that was the largest in Latin America. I believe opening a discussion doesn't mean leaving a comment and that's it, that's not a discussion. You say you want to discuss, but you act first and ask later, and I honestly believe your attitude is not the appropiate, because you imply you're right by deleting information or that you are right because you have have invested time in Latin American subjects. I believe I have invested more time that you, but that's just not the point. If there's an edit conflict or you're gonna make a major change, I think it should be appropiate to ask first, not just leaving a message. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kafziel can look at the relevant page histories and talk pages and make up his own mind, but as I said on your user page:

Alex, your claim that I'm "acting first and discussing later" doesn't really hold water. I first edited the literature section of Latin America in a way that seemed to me uncontroversial. You reverted without explanation. I then provided my explanations for my edits, at increasing length, and also left messages with you. When I changed the film section, I provided an explanation at the same time. Again, you simply effectively reverted. I've explained how I see things multiple times, both on the talk page and on your user page. And I've been asking for your rationale, which you haven't seemed keen on providing. NB I don't see these as "major changes," but perhaps you might explain why you think otherwise. In short, I think I've proved myself more than willing to discuss. I'm merely asking the same of you before you undertake these multiple reverts.

Oh, and by my count you have made at least five such reverts, albeit yes to just two sections. --Jbmurray 08:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly the situation seems to be continuing. User:AlexCovarrubias continues with his kneejerk reverts[25], and shows a marked reluctance either to engage in real discussion or (and for me this is worse) to provide any constructive steps forward as to how to improve these articles. Instead, he simply reverts what he perceives (errneously) to be instances of "anti-Mexicanism." Again, help and advice would be most welcome. --Jbmurray 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And unfortunately, User:AlexCovarrubias has now erased my attempts to initiate discussion with him.[26][27] I find this rather reprehensible. --Jbmurray 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've been watching this for a while, and while I agree that his reverts and deletions are rude, they're not technically outside policy. There appears to be some kind of absurd Mexico vs. Brazil debate going on all over Wikipedia. To me, that's the nationalistic equivalent of two bums fighting over an empty soda can. It's not about who's best, but about who sucks the least. So, to be honest, I've kind of had my fill of it. The best advice I can give you is to continue with his RfC and, maybe, ask for help from the mediation cabal (though I'm not sure mediation is going to be effective at this point). I'm not much of a mediator myself; I wasn't hired for my charm. The only other option I can suggest is just to walk away from it, and someone else will eventually take your place. Kafziel ^Talk 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yup, the Mexico vs. Brazil debate is pretty pointless, and I certainly don't have a dog in that particular fight. Nor am I very much interested in "punishing" Alex. (In that sense I worry somewhat that the RfC may antagonize him further and confirm his belief that I and everyone else are simply against him and all things Mexican.)

Ideally (yes, I'm idealistic) I'd like him to make a positive contribution to improving the coverage of Latin American (and therefore also Mexican) culture. It'd be great if he added material: particularly, say, to Latin American cinema or Mexican cinema, or Latin American literature or Mexican literature. All those pages leave much to be desired at present, and his contributions could expand and improve what's available on Mexico. If he's not up for that, at least I'd rather he didn't simply revert to the old (and very flawed material) and so let me, and whoever else wants to join me, do the best we can to improve things. If he won't do that, and if he continues as the guardian of certain pages within Wikipedia (as he has done for some months and perhaps years, it seems), then, yes, I'll walk away. But to be honest there's something of a problem if one individual can continue to block improvement in Wikipedia articles. I've come here and started to edit in part because my students (I teach Latin American studies, particularly Latin American literature) naturally tend to rely on Wikipedia a lot. I warn them against such reliance, of course, but I thought a more constructive response might be to help improve Wikipedia content in this area. And again, I'm not so naive to think that entering into the editing process would be plain sailing, but I don't want to be disheartened so soon.

Once more, any suggestions from you would be most welcome. I've been doing my best (perhaps not always with the greatest success) to encourage him rather than to allow my frustration to get the better of me. But surely such situations have arisen on Wikipedia before. I'm a little reluctant to walk way so quickly. --Jbmurray 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The pendulum swings both ways. When I first met Alex, he was trying to add good information to the Newly industrialized country article, and another user kept reverting him. Now he's the one reverting changes. I've been around the block a few times, and if there's one thing I've learned it's that 90% of editors tend to have a short attention span; within a month, or a week, or even a day, they'll find something more interesting and move on. When that happens, they'll look back at the article after a while and wonder what all the fuss was about. Of course, there's that 10% that has a one-track mind. 9% end up getting indefinitely blocked or banned for one reason or another, and the last 1% manage to be excellent, respected editors on their pet projects. I can only think of a couple of editors who have been able to do that. Anyway, my point is that the situation has a 100 percent chance of resolving itself: whether through the passage of time, a ban, or an epiphany. I guarantee it.

So if you don't feel the RfC is time well spent, feel free to walk away from it. If the other editors want to pursue it without you, they can. If not, no harm done. The great thing about Wikipedia is that there are thousands of people working on here all the time, and eventually someone will do whatever job you don't want to do. If you come here with a goal or a mission (like helping your students, or spreading the word about [fill in the topic]), you will probably self-destruct because things take time to reach a stable version. But if you remember that we're all supposed to be having fun, you'll find the patience to do good work here. Editing Wikipedia is like running underwater: you can move your legs a mile a minute, but no matter what you do you can only move so fast. Don't get discouraged, just know it's a long-term project that can't be sped up no matter how badly you want it. Kafziel ^Talk 04:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:JimBeamLabel.jpg

Hello, Kafziel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:JimBeamLabel.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kafziel/gallery. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted list

It seems that List of alleged secret agents has been somehow deleted. I probably missed the deletion discussion about it. Could you please restore this article in my name space, so I could rework the list? Was it really decided to be deleted? Thank you!Biophys 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was unanimously deleted here. From the statements in that discussion, I doubt a re-worked version would be more acceptable; it seems the biggest problem with it is the "alleged" part. You would need to cite each person with a reliable source making the allegation. I'll post a copy of it at User:Biophys/agents, but you might want to get input at deletion review before you spend more time on it. Kafziel ^Talk 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Probably I will not recreate the list as it was, but this list was very helpful for work with other articles, so I need it at least as reference material.Biophys 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Last are an internationally known and critically acclaimed band. Thanks.

Hi, Kafziel

I think the deletion might be a blessing in disguise, because I'd like to make this entry good enough that it will be what comes up when someone does a search on "The Last." The current "default" article (not sure of the terminology), though very slick and organized, is about a SINGLE episode of an audio play of Doctor Who. The Last (the band) have been around for over 30 years, and are cited as influences by members of The Minutemen, Black Flag, DESCENDENTS, etc. In fact, a recent incarnation of The Last featured Bill Stevenson (Black Flag, DESCENDENTS, ALL) on drums, and Karl Alvarez (DESCENDENTS, ALL) on bass. Their first album was just reissued by Bomp! Records which has also been around for a long time, and is well known as a medium-sized independent label specializing in garage punk and neo-psychedelia.

I know all this needs to be verifiable. When the time comes, how do I suggest that group's entry and not the single audio play episode comes up first when "The Last" is typed in the "search" field?

When the time comes that you have a viable article (it should be located simply at The Last (band), by the way), let me know and we can start a requested moves discussion on the Doctor Who article to see which one the community feels should take precedence. Kafziel ^Talk 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re. my test template

I'm so happy you liked it, dear Kafziel ;) Feel free to use it if you wish! Hope you're doing great, and love ya, Phaedriel - 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I really like your pwnage userbox, so I "borrowed" it. Is that okay? - Juansidious 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure, you can use it. The link just leads to your activity log, though; my log is full of vandals I have blocked, but yours doesn't have anything in it yet. It will someday, if you stick with the project long enough to be an admin. So you might want to change the wording and take that link out. Anyway, glad you like it! Kafziel ^Talk 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember this one?

Hey Kafziel - do you remember blocking this IP as User:71.112.7.212? They continue to vandalize - a little help? Here's my ANI:

Vandalizing at Afro

User:71.112.142.5, who has vandalized the Afro page as User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35 is once again vandalizing. This user has been the subject of a RfC, has been blocked several times, and now is using multiple IPs. They engage in disruptive editing and WP:GAME the rules so they just slightly dance inside the system. They are continually reverted. A review of their most egregious behavior is found at User:71.112.7.212, but now that they are slipping in and out of IPs, they try to only troll selectively. I'd like to ask for the above IPs to be blocked from Afro or, at the very least, have some admins take note of their behavior and engage them. --David Shankbone 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm semi-protecting the article for a few days. That's the best I can do for now, since blocking the IPs doesn't help. I'll keep an eye on things after the block expires. Kafziel ^Talk 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • That's perfect, thanks for your help. Hope you are well. --David Shankbone 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Get away, you loser

thanks for your warning message. But I recommend you find a job, my dearest American. It seems to me you don't even have a job, THAT IS WHY you do have plenty of time on wiki, am I right? you are 30, but you acheived NOTHING, shame on you! 70.54.11.30 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess they don't have VPNs in Macau. Which is good, because I need someone to make my shirts. Kafziel ^Talk 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

VPN is widely used in Macau, kindly refer to: [28]. For textile industries, mostly these procedures were moved to Mainland China because of cheaper labour cost. Coloane 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. João Felipe C.S 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I always like it when people are certain they know exactly who other people are by writing messages as to what you have and have not achieved. It really shows how people make themselves feel better in their behavior by trying to feel superior in their ignorance or in ascribing motivations to others. That said, "Get away, you loser" was kind of funny - almost schizophrenic. --David Shankbone 22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What's really funny is the crazy pro-Macao nationalistic fervor that got him in trouble in the first place, when a quick IP check shows he actually lives in Canada. If America sucks so much, what's he doing in Ottawa? Kafziel ^Talk 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Vandalizing at Afro

Hi Kafziel. Could you please have a look at the update re the related incident report at the AN/I. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Useless

Macau people are very smart. We are using mobile IPs, it means when you block, we will shift, no matter how you changed or blocked. If it is a range block, we will shift the network completely. Let's block this one, hahaha! 74.14.121.103 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^Talk 03:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Posted to ANI: Why people leave Wikipedia

• I have over 1,000 photographs on Wikipedia; one photo of an Afro really means little to me. But the IP above tried to replace it with someone wearing a wig -- and I wasn't even the editor who called them out on it. The IP, in all its incarnations, has found nobody to support them in their trolling and vandalizing. They have been reverted in 90% of their edits. One need only look at the histories and Talk pages (and, especially, talk page edit summaries since they delete most comments) to see. If others want to put up the Lauryn Hill on the Afro page, go for it. But a blurry photo of a kid wearing an afro wig? That's User:71.112.142.5, AKA User:71.112.7.212, AKA User: 71.112.6.35 (and, probably, soon User:71.112._.__ idea of a better photo. I'm not sure why a celebrity photo (and I have generated the most celebrity photos on Wikipedia) need replace a decent one of a good afro, but if others want to do so, I won't revert. But it's a shame that a troll and vandal would inspire a change--what's that say about the Wikipedia community? I'm nearing the end of my contributions on the site anyway; mainly for the "shoot the people who show dedication" attitude on here, that has caused many editors to leave. Thanks for the apology FayssalF, but in the end, I'm an accomplished editor and you rushed to the defense of an IP who only likes to toy with those who have strived to build a good encyclopedia. No wonder so many of us leave. I'll be going soon; I've given it a good bit of thought--it's ANIs like these, where others let the IPs get the upper hand instead of those of us with pretty big accomplishments, win out. Remember, the less we stick up for those with experience who have put countless hours and creativity into the site, the more you'll be stuck with people like this IP and less with people like me. I've given enough. I'll be finishing up some work on here, but my contributions will be limited and then cease. --David Shankbone 06:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

interactions on your talk page, part 2

This is exactly the sort of thing I warned you about. First of all, he's absolutely right - you're not allowed to change other people's comments in discussions for any reason. Secondly, if you don't like what someone writes on your talk page, you can remove their comments without calling them "absurd" and "asinine". Now, you can overreact to what I'm saying here and call it a threat (which will get you nowhere) or you can take it for what it's worth: one last friendly warning before things start to get unpleasant. I could leave you some stupid {{npa3}} template warning instead, but I prefer to talk things out like human beings whenever possible. You seem to have the potential to be a good editor, but I will not sit by and let you abuse others while I wait for that good editor to evolve. Kafziel ^Talk 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For your information, it is not uncivil to say that the words "absurd" and "asinine", on the contrary they are very civil and I would imagine that most would find it okay to say these words describing someones actions. 1.) I did not make any personal attacks, I was descring the nature of the behavior. 2.) I find it rather civil considering the other options that I have at my disposal. 3.) I particullarly find your "observations" of my page rather scrutinizingly rediculous and your manner in which you "talk" to me is by nature very cantankerous. If anything, I would contest that as an administrator, you are abusing the right for me to edit things on my own talk page without some Wikipedia administrator discussing the do's and don'ts on what I say on my edit line is crossing the line. -Signaleer 06:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is clear that you have not looked into the comments made by RJHall from observing his comments which me hade on his talk page in reference to me. This can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RJHall&action=history]. This proves that you as an administrator are harrassing me and looking for a conflict. If you think you are unbias and dealing fair treatment on Wikipedia, then you are terribly mistaken. -Signaleer 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

about TeleCanor

Interactive Voice Response Systems are being built around proprietary scripts. Voice XML specification does not allow building entire IVR conversation as a set of atomic nodes through which a typical systemResponse-callerInput-systemResponse flows. TeleCanor XML does that. Will you mind if I request you to explain how an organization does not get into "blatant advertising with no assertion of notability" while trying to bring order into a choatic technology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpraturi (talk • contribs)

From your statement above (and the fact that you've never done anything else at Wikipedia), you seem to be associated with the company in some way. In a situation like this, there are two things to ask yourself:

1. Does the product or company verifiably meet the guidlines here?
2. If so, why hasn't an independent, neutral party already written an article about it? Is a conflict of interest making you think it's more notable than it actually is?

Your statement above doesn't mean anything to me: why is it notable that TeleCanor XML allows building an entire IVR conversation as a set of atomic nodes through which a typical systemResponse-callerInput-systemResponse flows? I don't even know what half that stuff means, or why it matters that voice XML specification doesn't allow it, or why it matters that TeleCanor does. Lots of things do things other things can't, but that doesn't automatically make them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. At the very least, we require reliable, independent sources illustrating how the company meets our notability guidelines. Hope that helps. Kafziel ^Talk 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Comments

I responded to your comments on my talk page. --Maniwar (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus

Tyrus is back and edit warring again. Just thought I'd let you know. Aaron Bowen 01:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Well, the guy has reverted me three times without discussing anything on the talk page and I don't have any administrative authority to do anything for that. Would you mind looking into the case? SosoMK 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have discussed this: given your failure to accede, you were blocked and, upon your return, decided to revert to your preferred versions. I have commented on the talk page and, until you can garner support for your edits, they will be corrected. K., glance at the Georgia talk page. Corticopia 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, Sosomk, you don't want me to get involved. The way I see it, he wouldn't have been able to revert you if you hadn't already reverted him, so you are both equally at fault. Stop reverting and discuss, even if that means it has to stay on a version you don't like for a while. Just ask Corticopia - when I stop an edit war, nobody is happy. Kafziel ^Talk 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He just would not accept the fact that Georgia is in Europe. He said: You chose the wrong editor to spar with. :). SosoMK 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, he said that like 2 weeks ago. Kafziel ^Talk 21:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

K., thanks for your advocacy -- fresh from his block, please note that SosoMK has again breached 3RR, having just reverted the 'Georgia (country)' article 4 times in the last few minutes. Please take action or counsel if a report should be filed. Merci! Corticopia 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that proves that he just wants an RV war and I said that I am not a good person to mess with either and put Tony Montana's picture there. Is that really a personal attack? Note that I was blocked last week thanks to that POV warrior. SosoMK 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Resiliency

Thank you?! BTW: just observe what's happening at Georgia (country). ;) Corticopia 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian/Chris Newsom page protection

Hello...I noticed that you had posted a notice on my user page that the article is under protection against edit wars.
I agree with that, since I had posted on the discussion page (now archived) that a user had been repeatedly doing precisely and refused to discuss the reverts. Despite repeated warnings to stop, he continued.
Yet another editor, who likes to pretend he's an administrator, agreed with that user, and refused to do anything about the incessant revisions.
I was looking for a way to stop this, since the friends of the abuser did nothing to stop him. I discovered WP's three revert rule, which states that one must give the abuser fair warning by posting such on their user page.
To be fair, I posted on the article's discussion page (now archived) that that is what I intended to do if the abuser didn't stop.
Literally two minutes later, I was served with warnings by the faux administrator (Shoesss) and by one of the abuser's friends (neither of whom had done anything to stop the incessant reverts); I then got the notice that the page was being protected from edits. You placed that on my user page.
Since that IS what I wanted, and it seemed the only way to stop the abuser, I had no issue with your posting of that message. But when I went back to the article, and looked at the pages of other editors, it seems only I was served!
Since I was the one who was trying to stop the abuser - without help from the faux admin or the abuser's friends - I'm just curious as to why I was the one being served with the notice of the page protection.
That type of protection applies to anyone who'd try to edit the page until the hold on the article expires, correct?
If you could help me understand how this works, I'd appreciate it. (I've also learned to first DO what you're going to do on WP, i.e., notify admins or the like BEFORE you post to warn people of what you will do if article butchery doesn't stop. Apparently the game is that if you give people fair warning, and they know how the WP system works, they will report YOU first. See? I'm a quick study.)
Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter.Simplemines 13:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about being the only one given the notice. I also posted a message at User talk:Undog.

Yes, full page protection (what I did) applies to everyone; however, El C reduced it to semi-protection, which only prevents anonymous editors and brand-new users from editing. You should be able to edit it now, as long as you don't edit war.

As for the reporting thing - it's not a race. It doesn't matter who reports who first. It's a bad idea to go running to admins every time there's a problem, so always try to work it out between yourselves first. We don't go by who told us first; we try to look into the whole situation and base our decisions on who acted correctly and who didn't. Kafziel ^Talk 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree about not running to admins, esp. for silly stuff. It's just really annoying (I guess it's intended to be) when some folks in a dispute feel the need to play silly games.

I appreciate your input. Thanks again. Simplemines 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hi Kafziel, just wanted to let you know that I indefinitely blocked User:TyrusThomas4lyf. Hope this is ok with you, let me know if it isn't. -- Samir 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's probably for the best. Thanks for the heads-up. Kafziel ^Talk 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi Kafziel, I just saw an unpleasant incident (fortunately this is not about me!). It seems that one user falsely reported another user for alleged copyright violation, and the user who did not do anything wrong was blocked by administrator for two days. But maybe it is me who is wrong? Could you take a look and comment please? Please see [29], and [30].Biophys 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.You probably will not believe me, but this diff [31] was different at the moment when User:Kaldari made his decision. So, someone with administrative powers must be tempering here (sorry, again conspiracy theory).Biophys 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins can't change diffs. We can delete diffs so only other admins can see them, but none have been deleted there. I will ask the blocking admin to take a look, though. Kafziel ^Talk 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I'm too late: it's been taken care of already. [32] [33] See? No conspiracy. Kafziel ^Talk 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! But I have only one problem with this. It is obvious from comparison of the initial diff with original article (at least for user Hux) that Hanzo did not violate copyright. But Hux intentionally falsely reported him. Should anything be done about that?Biophys 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems Kaldari is looking into that. I'm going to let him do what he thinks is right. Now that he realized his mistake he is sure to want to know exactly what happened and why. Kafziel ^Talk 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Swearing on the Horns

On 21 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Swearing on the Horns, 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.

--Aquarius • talk 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
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. Ralbot 05:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally random question.

I found your name searching for the term Kafziel, so I'm hoping that maybe, JUST MAYBE you will be able to help me out. Is there a planet or a zodiac sign associated with Kafzeil? --Besseme 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm not an astrology expert but Kafziel is associated with Saturn. You can see the symbol here. It looks kind of like a lowercase "h" with a cross at the top. If you look at this it's near what I think is Leo (if the circle was a clock, the 10:00 position). The outer circle has the Leo symbol (like a lowercase "n") and then next to that there's the mars symbol and the saturn symbol. Hope that helps. Kafziel ^Talk 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You answered it, fo sho. He's the Lion. Thanks! --Besseme 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Kafziel ^Talk 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

KidCast

Dear Sir,

You lambasted my third attempt to add significant data about KidCast and in particular "KidCast for Peace; Solutions for a Better World," that was birthed to celebrate the UN's 50th anniversary in SF. The entry I have been attempting to make; regarding the project has been rejected by you and others.

Can you please be constructive in your suggestions for what is the best way to add this significant event, that is verifiable and significant, in the annal's of web history, children's education and technology advancement?? Are you seeking someone other than me to make the entry? Is that what the problem is here, that I am writing about a project I produced? Please advise?

I have supplied published articles, links to online participants and other documentation, etc. What else is needed to having this episode of the birth of video broadcasting and educational entertianment on the web, be authenticated and posted on Wikipedia? I am asking for your recommendation for how to get this work reinstated here? Please be helpful rather than (what appears to be) cut throat. Thanks

Peter

You certainly have a conflict of interest here (see this guideline for more information) which is probably part of the problem. Also, looking at the deleted article, I don't see anything establishing notability under our guidelines, which would probably cause the article to be deleted by consensus even if it wasn't speedied. If you can present reliable sources to strongly establish the notability of this subject, you can file a request for deletion review (rather than simply trying to re-create it over and over).

Hope that helps. Kafziel ^Talk 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, 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 06:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage content

Hello :) I'd just like to tell you that on the third paragraph of your userpage when you say about fellow admins heading over to CAT:CSD, you have typed:

and delete any articles ith with your initials

, I think the word emboldened is the correct spelling, just thought I'd tell you as I cant fix it for you as its fully protected. Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I did it on purpose for some reason ([34]) but I can't imagine why. Thanks for the heads-up! Kafziel ^Talk 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Grief

You wrote that? I don't know why I was thinking I'd seen that article a long time before I knew you... seemed awfully familiar in tone or content. *shrug* -- nae'blis 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Perhaps it seems older because it's so obviously a timeless classic? ;)

But seriously, I can understand some of the changes people tried to make to it, and I haven't done anything with it (or paid much attention to it) since I first put it up last month. I guess the dry humor appeals to some folks more than others and some people are protective of it. It probably also has something to do with the amount of time one spends on anti-spam efforts vs. the amount of time one spends ensuring everyone plays nice. Eagle 101 gave me a barnstar for it, Jeff nominated it for deletion, and there seem to be equal numbers of lovers and haters all around.

Of course, if I had to sum up my own Wikipedia popularity in two words, the words would be "opinions vary". So it stands to reason that the same should go for my work. Kafziel ^Talk 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:America album.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:America album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle

Hi Kafziel,

I just saw that you have reverted my recent addition to bicycle type. I thought adding a picture is a good contribution. Can you please explain? Your reply is much appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Ajentp

Already did. You can reply on your own talk page if you have any questions. Kafziel ^Talk 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, 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 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:RentAWreckLogo.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First Sentance of "Canada" article.

Hi Kafziel, I am asking your assistance in clarifying the first sentance of the article for the country Canada. It does not follow the form of any other country, and furthermore defines canada as occupying most of "Northern North America". There has been a large and rather unproductive conversation on the talk page regarding this, and my position is that Northern North America is not a defined place and by citing it takes away from the encyclopedic nature of the article. It is also not listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_North_America_and_Northern_America article. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks, oo7jeep Oo7jeep 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. What alternative do you suggest? It would be incorrect to say Canada occupies most of North America, since the remainder of North America (the U.S. and Mexico) is larger. You're capitalizing "northern", whereas the introduction of the article does not; it isn't implying that there's such a thing as "Northern North America", but there is such a thing as "northern North America" (in the same way that there's such a thing as a "northern" part of any other continent). Kafziel ^Talk 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, then nevermind! I really just wanted a second opinion. I think there are many other options that would be more precise such as "Canada is the largest country in North America" or "Canada is the northernmost country in North America". Overall I think the order needs to be changed to maintain consistency with other articles regarding countries. My initial heartburn really came from the fact that when I read the article it seemed like there would be room for improvement. Thanks a lot for your help.

E Oo7jeep 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and I've edited the article to reflect your first suggestion. Keep in mind, though, that I don't have any special editing privileges as an administrator - if someone doesn't like it they can still change it back, and I'm not really inclined to get involved in a big semantic argument on the article talk page. As it is now, though, the intro sentence is succinct and 100% correct. Hope that helps. Kafziel ^Talk 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canada

I am aware of that, but in fairness, seeing as you are not interested in the issue and knew it was being discussed, you could have at least allowed a consensus to be reached before deciding to make the change yourself. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no waiting for consensus before editing. Kafziel ^Talk 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am aware of that, but in fairness; in order to avoid edit warring... but regardless, as I indicated earlier I could care less what version we use... — Dorvaq (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I agreed with was Corticopia's, which didn't really have anything to do with "ambiguity". The point was a simple matter of throwing the statement regarding Canada being the largest country in North America into the geography section, and replacing it with "occupies most of northern..." in the introduction, which in effect would situate Canada within North America. Corticopia felt from a reader's perspective that it was more important to situate Canada than to establish it as the largest country. No argument regarding ambiguity was made at least on my part. Anyhow, I must stress again that I really don't care what version we use just as long as both statements are used. I really have no issue with either. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. Regarding this report: [35]

THe first one was a partial revert, the second one was a revert.

Wikipedia states: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.

Thats why I reported him. Also, the reason we usually report the arbcom violations on the 3rr noticeboard is because we get a quicker response. We've all done it before and other admins were ok with it, including arbcom admins. Thanks, have a good day.Hajji Piruz 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the first edit was nothing but a section break. No content change at all. Secondly, it should have been reported to the arbcom, not at 3RR. I'm sure arbcom admins would be okay with it; less work for them. But it's not the right way to do it. Kafziel ^Talk 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Sosomk

Kafziel, you might remember this user from Georgia (country). After returning from the block Sosomk maintains the same attitude, revert warring and incivility. My [36] was declined. I asked for it to be reconsidered. Tamokk 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Richardshusr's RFA

I removed your vote on Richardshusr's RFA because it's not yet live (and the candidate was worrying about it at WT:RFA). When it goes live, please place it again.--Chaser - T 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote for support even if it was premature. The problem is that "jump the gun" votes are explicitly forbidden according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. I guess the concern is that some candidates might "pack the ballot box" by lining up support before going live with an RFA. For this reason, I removed your vote along with a couple of other "premature" votes.

The RFA is now live so you are welcome to express your opinion now.

--Richard 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	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 08:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

NEW YORK CITY MEET UP!!

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazil page

Hi Kafziel! The user:Opinoso is reverting my editions and not accepted to talk. You can make something? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply - I am on vacation for the next two weeks, so I will not be online as much as usual. But it looks like Opinoso is now discussing the situation on the article talk page and on your talk page, and another admin is aware of the situation and can step in if needed. Kafziel ^Talk 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, 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 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I like to ask what is a legal threat. Thanks Taddybear500 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus revisited?

I have a strong suspicion that user 69.208.210.158 [37] is a sock puppet for blocked user User:TyrusThomas4lyf based upon the common theme for recent edits as well as the Chicago based IP. One indication of this can be seen by comparing [38] and [39] along with the edit summary at [40]. Further edits by this IP may be worth monitoring. Myasuda 03:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
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 07:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

Hey Kafziel ^Talk, VK35 (talk · contribs) has recently entered an extremely contentious situation involving the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article as a representative of the RFC cabal. I know you have placed this article on your watch list since you have recently “Protected” the page because of an edit war going on. By the way, thanks. My question is, I just found out that VK35 (talk · contribs) has just been indefinitely blocked see; [[41]] First, how do I handle this situation? Second, how do I get another representative to get involved, since this article does desperately need a non-bias third party representative. Thanks for any and all help or suggestions. Shoessss ^talk

Hi

Did you know your user name has been featured in the movie "Memory"? Kevin, Fl.

James Chester

Why did you delete an article on James Chester? Was it about the Manchester United football player?

I didn't. And, no, it wasn't. Kafziel ^Talk 06:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works

Hey there, I noticed that you changed {{cereal box cover}} to {{GFDL}} because you had taken the photograph. The problem with that is that your photograph is a derivative work (see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works). So your photograph cannot be distributed without the permission of the box cover's copyright owner (unless, of course, it qualifies as fair use). It's kinda a muddled bit of copyright law, but it's always best to be on the safe side of copyright law. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's best to use Fair Use to the proper extent. It is not a two-dimensional photo of the box cover alone; it is a photo of a three-dimensional object - the box. Photos of three-dimensional objects take on their own copyrights. Kafziel ^Talk 04:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet if you had scanned the flat surface of the front of the box achieving almost the same image as a straight on photo of that surface, it would clearly seem to me to be a reproduction of a 2D object. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But I didn't, so it isn't. See what I mean? Note the top right corner of the photo, where enough of the edge of the box is visible to make it evident that it's a photo of a three-dimensional object while preserving the subject matter. This just seems like copyright paranoia to me. Kafziel ^Talk 05:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tend towards copyright conservatism, if only because it's so easy to slap a safer tag on and decrease the legal risk the project carries. If that's copyright paranoia, then I will happily start subscribing to poorly xeroxed newsletters. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If we don't use our rights to their full extent—for fear of some sort of hypothetical persecution with no basis in law—the copyright restrictions will grow tighter and tighter without anyone noticing. Campbell's didn't sue Andy Warhol, and General Mills isn't going to sue me. Kafziel ^Talk 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello. I saw you in the category "administrators who will recover copies of deleted pages on demand". Could you please give me a copy of User talk:Daniel575? Cheers, SalaSkan 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I'll provide copies of articles, but not deleted user talk pages. Those are usually deleted due to disruption, personal attacks, or private information. If you have something specific in mind that you need, let me know and I'll take a look. Kafziel ^Talk 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. He is active on the Dutch Wikipedia, and has an interwiki to his English account there, so I wondered why he was banned here. (By the way, the deletion logs says "cleaning temporary userpages", so it was probably not deleted due to disruption). SalaSkan 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to delete talk pages of blocked users after a while, because there's no need to keep a permanent public record of the events leading up to the block. I will tell you it seems he was blocked for a combination of disruption, argumentative behavior, and finally calling for physical violence; this comment was the last straw.

It is not unheard of for active users on other Wiki projects to blocked from the English Wikipedia. As the largest and most public version of Wikipedia, we have higher standards for content and behavior. Hope that helps clear it up. Kafziel ^Talk 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I can understand it now. Cheers! SalaSkan 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Eleland

I would like to suggest that you lift the block. If you look at his contributions on the article's talk page you can see that he acted in good faith and was provoked by two editors who have a pattern of tag team edit warring and entrapping less experienced editors into 3RR violations. This is a form of harrasment which is not what the 3RR limitations was intended for. I would also ask you to keep an eye on User:Isarig's reports on the 3RR notice board. If his reports appear with great frequency, someone should ask why. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already looked into the situation, and I still feel the block is warranted. Eleland is constantly pushing the limits of edit warring on various articles; it's the same sort of behavior you're asking me to monitor from Isarig. I don't believe in using 3RR to try to win an argument by tricking one side into getting blocked, but that's not the case here. There are multiple parties on both sides of the issue, so this block has not unfairly silenced either side, but it's still important to distinguish between those who admitted their mistakes and self-reverted, and those who did not.

This block should not be viewed as a statement that I agree with the other side. I will deal with any further edit warring, from either side, in the same way. Kafziel ^Talk 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. But could you be so kind as to give your opinion of the comments on the talk page. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User name: Myasuda

Hello, I am requesting that some form of punishment be taken to contain the following user: User:Myasuda. By his or her continual, unjustified and discriminate reversions of my edits, I believe that he or she has reached a level of vandalism. From what I gather, this user thinks that I am someone else, perhaps someone whom he or she has a vendetta against. I have asked him/her to stop this abuse. I have left a warning on his/her user page as well, which you will see at or near the bottom of his talk page. Yet, this problem from him (or her) persists even after I have left warnings. I am sorry that I am not more familiar with how to use Wikipedia to link you to the direct instances of his/her vandalism, but you can gather all that you should probably need just from looking at the edit history of the following page: NBA records. However, this is not the only place where Myasuda has reverted edits specifically made by me, but it is the best example.

This user has also demonstrated a significant amount of bias in favor of Wilt Chamberlain. For instance, I noticed that when a user tries to correct biased statements made in favor of Wilt Chamberlain (and apparently these original statements were written by Myasuda), Myasuda will continually revert the edits to his biased statements. He does not seem to understand how he is being biased. One example of this can be found from the edit history of the following page: Rebound (basketball). Thank you, and if you need to respond, perhaps it will be best to do it right here on your page. I will make sure to check your talk page for further communication on this issue. Thanks much for your help.--Hoopsknowledge 00:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you indefinitely as an obvious sockpuppet of User:TyrusThomas4lyf, so that should solve the problem: nobody can revert you if you can't edit in the first place. Hope that helps. Kafziel ^Talk 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, 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 07:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Epistades

You are the one who blocked this user I take.... he seems to be at it again as an anon [42] and as you can see is levying personal attacks against editors, can you lend a hand? DMighton 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He's now being 'disruptive' under his original name. He's being unreasonable. GoodDay 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Hi, since your advice on my talk page was helpful, I'm wondering if I could ask for it again. I've been making a strong effort to discuss the article and achieve consensus, however the article appears to be getting only more POV, and as for consensus -- there doesn't even seem to be consensus on the need for consensus. I'm unfamiliar with all the relevant mediation, RfC, etc procedures, but I'm feeling more and more certain that some kind of intervention needs to take place. Can you point me in the right direction? Eleland 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a more specific example of the issue? The problem of the book cover image is very clear-cut; I have given Humus sapiens a final warning about violating the fair use policy. I'm not sure what the other problems might be.

Keep in mind that POV is not necessarily bad. Some issues have points of view that need to be expressed, and as long as reliable sources are used it's okay to include those views. We do not give undue weight to a point of view simply to try to balance an article, so some articles will naturally have a certain point of view. Kafziel ^Talk 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem originally was the inclusion of sections about a Palestinian TV show and P.A. textbooks, when there was no apparent relevance to the subject matter. The "TV" section contained a claim that the show encouraged children to commit suicide bombings, but this claim was not found in the source material, and in fact, the source material is a translation by a pro-Israeli group which has been found to be seriously inaccurate by CNN and others. The kid was actually saying "The jews will shoot us ... I will be martyred", but this was twisted around to "We will annihilate the jews ... I will commit martyrdom".

The textbooks section was pretty ludicrous. It didn't even mention suicide bombing, for one thing. Furthermore, it cited numerous academic studies which found no incitement in P.A. textbooks, yet gave equal weight to some shady Israel-lobby groups which made claims. Humus Sapiens then proceeded to remove all information about the conclusions of these studies, leaving only the dubious claims, and the fact that studies had been done -- using studies which demolished the claims as if they support the claims.

Gf this kind of speculative material is to be included, there probably ought to be a lot of material on how Israeli actions contribute to hatred, resentment, and a suicidal outlook among the Palestinians. But then the article becomes just a general dumping ground for random information about the conflict as a whole.

The other issues are less serious IMO. A few incidents are mentioned where youths were transporting weapons on behalf of militants, or where youths committed attacks that were not suicidal in nature. The image of the youngest "child" suicide bomber, who was 16 years old, keeps getting moved way down to the bottom, previously in favor of the book cover picture. I don't know why that would be desirable except to obscure the issue and pretend that young children are committing bombings, rather than 16 and 17 year olds. Since there's only one image in the article now, it really should follow the normal style with the image at the top right of the article. The last issue is just general incivility. I don't appreciate being called a "pro-Hamas partisan".

Thanks for your prompt action & reply Eleland 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have doubts about the validity of a source, you can tag the statement with {{dubious}} or {{verify source}} and start a discussion on the talk page. This will give other editors a chance to review the source material and decide whether or not they feel it meets our guidelines. Those tags will also draw the attention of other users not currently involved with the article, who have a more neutral stand on the issue.

If you feel the other problems aren't being resolved through discussion, you can seek mediation. I'm not much help in that department; when I get mediate a dispute, nobody leaves happy. Kafziel ^Talk 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your attempt to intercede was misguided, but thanks for trying. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Im sorry, that was a mistake. Thanks for catching it early. If I had noticed I would have fixed it myself. Oh I know how it happened, I had edited over a previous version! Silly mistake on my part.Hajji Piruz 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:206.47.252.66

A 24 hour block for at least 14 reverts in an obvious war????? Do you think that's fair to legitimate editors like myself who had to refrain from editing the article because we were afraid of violating 3RR?? I think the anonymous vandal (after 14 reverts I think we can call the editor a vandal) deserves more. Orangemarlin 23:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punishment; they are to ensure the nonsense stops. I also semi-protected the article indefinitely, so there will be no more anonymous editing until some progress is made in discussion.

Also, for the record, it was not vandalism. You may disagree with the changes, but they do not fall under any of the criteria. POV-pushing and stubbornness are specifically cited as examples of what vandalism is not. Which is why I also blocked ConfuciusOrnis for 24 hours, and came quite close to blocking you. Kafziel ^Talk 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ME? What did I do? Again, 14 edits? Orangemarlin 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted three times. 3RR is not a guarantee of three free reverts, and ordinarily I would block all participants in a 3RR-level edit war who have made 3 or more reverts. ConfuciusOrnis has been blocked for that in the past; you haven't, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and let your participation slide. Kafziel ^Talk 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would beg to differ. First, the anonymous (cough) editor had POV edits which were deleterious to the article. Second, several requests were made to the anonymous editor to cease and desist, bring it to the discussion, and place fact tags where it was problematic. Third, I hadn't been warned. I guess it's a matter of interpretation, and you gave me good faith, so I appreciate it, though I would have been seriously annoyed. I still think the anonymous one deserves a much longer punishment, because he doesn't rate good faith. Orangemarlin 23:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I went and read WP:VANDAL. Grumble. You're right. Grumble. Grrrrrrr. How can an admin remember every freaking rule in this place!!!!!Orangemarlin 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR rule allows, at the reasonable discretion of the editor who chooses to use the permitted three on limited occasions, three reverts. That's why it's called the 3RR rule. When another editor, such as the unregistered IP that was involved here, persistently reverts vastly beyond the permitted three, there's no requisite to insist that the first user should not exhaust the permitted three before getting out of the way. As to the block of ConfuciiusOrnis, I recognize he appears to have exceeded the permitted three, but respectfully request that Kafziel use administrative discretion and lift the block of ConfuciusOrnis under the present circumstances. Thanks. ... Kenosis 00:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The "3" part of "3RR" is a guideline, but the spirit of the rule is to avoid edit warring of any kind. From the policy (my emphasis):

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours.

ConfuciusOrnis has been blocked before for precisely the same thing: claiming to be reverting vandalism when, in fact, he was reverting valid edits. There is no "appears to have exceeded" here; he reverted fourteen times. If the block of the anonymous IP stands (and it does), then the block of ConfuciusOrnis stands. Kafziel ^Talk 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now in the history. I had mistakenly thought his situation was more similar to OM's. Thanks for clarifying; I suppose CO will understand what the appropriate course of action is the next time around. ... Kenosis 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC) ... And yes, of course there's reason to issue blocks for good cause. We don't need the 3RR rule for that. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. ... Kenosis 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If I might interject just a little history here. There was a bit of a firestorm regarding the initial 3RR block because several administrators and editors did not feel it was appropriate. In fact, a RfC is underway regarding the event. That block arose because one editor deleted and archived a controversial talk section. Several editors and admins were trying to recover the information, and he got caught in the middle. Many of us felt that event was unfair, because he was blocked, despite several other people being involved (myself included). I guess you'd count it against CO, but in a court of law, that conviction might have been overturned and struck from the record. However, just to presume some good faith here, I know that CO battles POV warriors wherever. I don't think he believed the 3RR applied if he were trying to keep another editor from ruining an article. Being bold and all. Orangemarlin 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I know your talk page states that you will check pages where you have left messages, but as this is the first time we have conversed, I would just like to play it safe. I have read your post to me "A note about sources" carefully, and though I have tried to take its advice to heart, I have a few questions. Could you please review them on my talk page and help clear up my confusion? --Qwerty7412369 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CU for BlueShrek

You may want to see the CU results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wrestlinglover420. The answer "Possible" given there, I'm assuming, means that he is likely a sockpuppet of TheManWhoLaughs? If so, can you block him indefinitely? Lord Sesshomaru

I was just looking at that. It's not a firm CU decision, but I'm going to go ahead and do it for now. If another admin disagrees, he can always be unblocked. Kafziel ^Talk 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	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 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Madness

Why did you block Madness From Pointlesweb 5 time Wiki offender I am back!

And now you're gone again. Kafziel ^Talk 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	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 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

McBane420

Hey Kafziel, why did you block him so suddenly? I figured you just read Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueShrek and decided to block him based on his edits? Lord Sesshomaru

Yup. Pretty obvious, since he showed up just a couple of days after I blocked BlueShrek and immediately started editing wrestling articles in the same way. And knew enough about what's been going on to comment not only on users' talk pages but on the sockpuppet report as well. Obvious socks don't need to wait for CheckUser, so I canned him. Kafziel ^Talk 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Lord Sesshomaru

Shouldn't you make a note of this block at that CheckUser page? Just wondering. Lord Sesshomaru

No need. There's no reason to cancel the CheckUser request just because he's already blocked, and a note won't add any weight to it, either. It's a non-issue. Kafziel ^Talk 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Heavens no! I would never dream of canceling that, I meant that you could have lefted a note about it. But, like you said, it's a non-issue. Lord Sesshomaru

Though I'm sure I've seen it before, where is the policy that says something in the likes of: "Breaking 3RR to revert obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets is allowed."? If possible, I'll use this rule to prevent (another) temporary block for 3RR on my account. Lord Sesshomaru

Kafziel, are you available to answer these questions? Lord Sesshomaru

It's at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions, the 4th bullet point. Note, though, that those exceptions are not guaranteed; if you are wrong, and you break 3RR reverting someone who turns out not to be a sockpuppet, you may be blocked. It's best not to get anywhere near 3RR; if someone is edit warring, let them have their way temporarily and ask for assistance instead of reverting them. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before you make a mistake and get blocked. Happens all the time. Kafziel ^Talk 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears we're gonna have to get that dynamic ip range blocked for sure. I see no useful edits coming from this user at all. Your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru

Range blocks are used very sparingly. Believe it or not, the edits from that user and his sockpuppets are nowhere near disruptive enough to call for that. Apart from the sockpuppetry, they're not even vandalism; it's mostly just a content dispute. You think the stuff should be in the article, he doesn't. If he hadn't gone so overboard with the sockpuppets, and had gone through proper dispute resolution channels instead, he might have gotten his way. So there's definitely no cause to block an entire range of IPs. We'll just keep dealing with it as it comes up. Kafziel ^Talk 13:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What a shame, my request would be denied? Can I do it anyways (just in case) or do you have another plan? For how much longer does this have to go on until we can grant a range block? Lord Sesshomaru

Request for comment

In view of your post here reagrding Hpuppet, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SirIsaacBrock (2nd). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

External links on Absinthe page

(yes again, and so soon after vacation). If you have time I would like an admin's/second opinion on the recent external link additions (now two) on the page. Neither belong IMO, based on the guidelines. Frankly I have a hard time keeping "good faith" when someone comes to do nothing but add a link and complain when asked to defend it, so perhaps new eyes might keep it from turning into a revert war. -- Ari 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	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 00:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orange County subcategorization scheme

As you may have noticed, and as I tagged it sometime back, Category:Orange County, New York has been getting rather large. Since it has been mostly entries I've created that have gotten it that way, I have been creating some local categories to diffuse entries into (Category:Cornwall, New York and Category:Goshen, New York).

A couple of days User:Noroton created Category:Education in Orange County, New York and finally, by doing so, sort of forced my hand on posting a more comprehensive topic-based master subcategorization scheme to the category talk page, one that I had been thinking over for a while. So, as the other OCNY-based editor, I'd certainly appreciate it if you had the chance to look it over and tell me what you think. Daniel Case 20:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, 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 08:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trix box 2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Trix box 2006.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Until(1 == 2) 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

heads up

You're being accused of abuse at [43] but apparently no one has bothered to tell you yet. I just thought you should know... --W.marsh 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Following up with commentary based on that thread. The images of currency need to be removed from User:Kafziel/gallery. They may or may not be copyrighted, but until we know they are free from copyright then we consider them fair use. As such, per WP:NFCC the images can not be used on a userpage. There are other images there (such as Image:Trix box 2006.jpg) that need to be removed as well. The bot properly removed the currency images on July 3rd. You reverted on July 6th, and then protected the page. The use of protection in this case was highly inappropriate. What you should have done instead was to contact the bot owner, questioning the removals. But, there's no evidence you did so either to the talk page of the bot or the talk page of the bot owner. The protection should immediately be removed from User:Kafziel/gallery as an inappropriate use of this tool. --Durin 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Kafziel, I have removed the non-free images from User:Kafziel/gallery, including the ones which had been tagged as free but have now been re-tagged. I appreciate that particularly with regard so such things as photos you take yourself of food or drink containers which contain copyrighted images or logos, it's easy to think that the copyright is yours. I made that mistake myself when I joined Wikipedia, and some of the images I had uploaded to Commons had to be deleted. I suggest you read Derivative works. I do very much trust the expertise of the editor who has retagged some of your images. I have left your page protected. Please see WP:NFC and Resolution:Licensing policy for further information, and especially WP:NFCC#9. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Wow. What a fiasco. Well, I'd like to argue that putting Fair Use tags on my photos is an absurd case of copyright paranoia (as absurd as saying this image isn't free because it contains logos of Virgin, Lowes, Cup O Noodles, TDK, Budweiser, Cingular, Swatch, Univision, etc.); but I'm still stuck with this damned Apple notebook and I can't bear to conduct any drawn-out conversations on it. So I'll concede the point—for now—and simply remove the protection from my gallery. You are all spared my wrath due to technical limitations. :) Kafziel ^Talk 09:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • For the sake of clarity, particularly amidst the accusations of abuse, I guess I should also point out this conversation from last month; I made my position pretty clear at that time and got no further argument after that, at which point (after a reasonable amount of time elapsed) I changed the copyright tag back. I stand by what I said then. Kafziel ^Talk 09:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference here is that the image you noted isn't solely focused on the logos of the companies in question. In the product images, what you are doing is equivalent to scanning a box cover. There's little difference, and nothing transformative about the work produced. Thus, the original copyright holder maintains rights. The images have been tagged appropriately. --Durin 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So says you. I disagree. It's not the same as scanning a box cover, because the photos in question are clearly of three dimensional objects, not simply of the cover art. Some of them even include samplings of the contents outside the package. Not the same at all. Kafziel ^Talk 00:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Where copyright is concerned, and where there is disagreement, it's best to err (if it is an error) on the side of being cautious and conservative and strict. ElinorD (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
          • And, again, I disagree. As I pointed out in the original discussion, it's best not to err at all. Use copyright law as it is, not as you suppose it might be. Being cowed by copyright paranoia is a slippery slope: if we're too chicken to use the rights we have to their full extent, eventually we'll lose them. Kafziel ^Talk 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	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 20:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

angel

I want to know who what is my higher power and how I can intereact. I could even percive you as the actual spirit. captainflash2006@yahoo.co.uk I have many attributes similar to my watcher, as in that I can see almost all and can do nothing but watch. I have a differecnce I am flesh 4 this moment and cassiel is spirit. Im must have something for cassiel I ask myself :) only a master will know what I seek.

making a page

hi, i noticed that you deleted the edible arrangements page back in february. i was wondering if there was some way it could be put back up?

Unnecessary deletion

Hey!

I created a wiki-page for a Finnish indie label If Society in February and you deleted it under the criteria of notability, which is kind of weird, since I would seriously challenge your ability to judge notability of a foreign indie label from the US. Granted, labels such as the above mentioned are notable usually mostly nationally, but since the majority of labels like these operate globally and in English, so notability in the English-speaking part of the world should not be a prerequisite.

As for national notability, this label has been operating almost 10 years, is one of the most important Finnish indies and just had an album open at #11 on the Finnish album chart this year, so I guess that would warrant at least some sort of notability, so please do leave the article be once I recreate it.

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forssto (talk • contribs)

Welcome back!

Hey Kafziel, are you up to date on what's been going on lately? Hit me on my talk page for any questions, comments, or concerns. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	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 05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Horlo

I noticed that you tagged User:Horlo's user page with sockpuppet warning. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any reasons warranting such an accusation. Could I ask you to provide explanations for your action on that user's talk page? Thanks in advance. Sincerely. --Hillock65 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He's an obvious sockpuppeteer, and has been blocked for it in the past. CheckUsers are not required for obvious cases such as this. Kafziel ^Talk 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	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 06:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Darkseed.JPG

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
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. R Delivery Bot 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
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. R Delivery Bot 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf, new sockpuppet account

Hi, I'm not sure if you remember TyrusThomas4lyf who was indefinately banned for repeated personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and other assorted acts of vandalism. But, it looks as if he has returned under two new anon ip's: 75.34.40.191, 75.34.30.119, and 75.31.237.66. I started a case on his new sockpuppetry here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (2nd), please feel free to review if and when you have a chance. I only bring this to your attention because you are familar with his acts of vandalism, and it seems he has returned to his old habbits. Thanks for your help! Zodiiak 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
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 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, 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. R Delivery Bot 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Blue_Sky_and_White_Sun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blue_Sky_and_White_Sun.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other 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 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you used a template here (explaining to an admin how to find a list of his uploads) tells me you probably aren't monitoring this, but what the heck. I'll reply anyway, and continue to bang my head against the wall as I've done numerous times before.

Military insignia are not copyrighted, and the fact that some chuckleheads decided to change Template:Military-Insignia back in May doesn't change anything. I couldn't possibly care less whether it ends up deleted or not, but the image is public domain, and I won't dignify the absurd discussion on that talk page by trying to justify it further. Kafziel ^Talk 06:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection for TNA Hard Justice

The event has ended. No more speculation. --Aaru Bui ^DII 14:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^Talk 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	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 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coorscutter.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
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 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf

Kafziel, in the interests of curtailing sock-puppetry activity to the extent possible, I was wondering if you could weigh in on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (6th) when you get a chance. As an admin with some knowledge of this case's background, I think you're ideally qualified to judge the merits of the case laid out. Thanks. Myasuda 14:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for taking the time to report it. Kafziel ^Talk 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Sarah Fendall

I have nominated Sarah Fendall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no relevant opinion on that. I think Sarah Fendall is clearly not notable, but I also think it's fine to keep the redirect. I don't think either of those opinions would serve to advance the issue at hand, so I'll just stay out of it; I don't get involved in esoteric, semantic debates, and it looks like that's what we have here. Thanks for the heads-up, though. It's appreciated. Kafziel ^Talk 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 01:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot for the barnstar

that you recently dropped off. Finding it is a great way to start the day. I also started an article on E. M. Viquesney and I think that there is another picture there. I have a couple more stached in various places but decided not to start a gallery - though 139 (or whatever) of those fellows would get it well past platoon size. I guess it would need a centurian. In any case I have a lot of info and interest in memorials and was happy to run into that article. Nice chatting again. Carptrash 15:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	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 09:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

List of kayals in India

Hello,

Since this article was created by you, I would like to know the reason why the word kayal being a Malayalam word was introduced in the article title. This is an English language wikipedia, if you really wanted to create a list of lakes, the title should have been List of lakes in India and not List of kayals in India. However I would like to know if a kayal is very different from a lake. Please clarify... Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically what it comes down to is, I wrote the article so I get to pick the name. If you want to write one, you can pick the name. If you'd like to create a list of lakes in India, be my guest. I didn't want to do that (to be quite frank, I don't care about India in the least, so I was not interested in compiling such a huge list) so I created a redirect at the "lakes" location in case someone (perhaps you?) someday decided to make a more comprehensive list. "Kayal" is a valid term (obviously, since you understood what it meant) and is simply a different way of saying "List of lakes in Kerala, India". Would that have been better? Maybe. Then again, "Kerala" is not an English word, either. Neither is Obi. Or enchilada. Or Croix de Guerre. Or Ilkal saree, for that matter. I don't speak a word of Malayalam, but I know what a Kerala is.

It seems to me you're taking my use of a Malayalam word a bit personally. Is there a reason for that? You can see from my user page that I'm just a white guy from California. I've written a few India-related articles as favors to people, but it should be pretty clear that I don't have some secret agenda here. Kafziel ^Talk 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think that I am taking things personally here. It was a frank and impersonal question that I asked whether you had any specific reason to name the article as List of kayals in India, instead of (as you have specified), List of lakes in Kerala, India which would have been the correct title for the article. I am perfectly entitled to understand why a Malayalam word was used in the article title instead of an English one, as per this guideline and other guidelines on naming conventions. I did not know what kayal means until I came across this article. You are entitled to choose the name you want, but please be judicious in picking up the right name in the article. Kerala, Obi, Enchilada, Croix de Guerre, Ilkal saree are all proper nouns and hence deserve articles with their corresponding names. lake is a common noun and hence the article title must have the word lake in it and not kayal. Should I be more clearer than that? That you are a white guy from California has no bearing in the discussion here and hence lets not even talk anything related to that. A better choice of the title would have avoided the unnecessary discussion here and at WP:AFD. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no use crying over spilt milk; the article was written almost a year ago. And just as you can say a better choice of title would have avoided this discussion, I can say that if someone else had bothered to write it, choice of title wouldn't have been up to me in the first place. And, while we're crying over milk, you would have been better off starting a move request instead of a deletion request. Or just talking to me first. I would have been happy to move the article over the redirect at list of lakes in India. But now we have to let the AfD run its course.

Perhaps instead of debating this right now, you should be creating properly-titled articles about lakes. Then they would all have titles of which you approve, and I wouldn't get stuck writing any more articles about India. We'd both win. Kafziel ^Talk 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do see that you have created List of Kayals, List of lakes in India and List of kayals in India, all on the same date. So you did have a choice of selecting the right title but for some vague reason you chose to let the article remain at List of kayals in India and let the other two articles be redirected to it. Don't blame it on somebody for a probable error in judgement on your part. For that matter, I don't think anyone is pressurising you to write articles about India, so you need not feel stuck-up writing articles on it. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there were requests for me to help write certain Kerala-related geography articles. I did feel obligated to help the newbies who were having trouble. One thing led to another, and I ended up stuck writing a few of them. And, again, I was only writing about Kerala - it wouldn't have been right to call an article "lakes of India" and include nothing but lakes in Kerala. If I had done that, someone would have had a fit about that, too, and like you they would have jumped to conclusions about suspicious behavior and started raising all kinds of fuss. That's part of the reason I hate working on India-related articles. The bigotry is quite tiresome.

So okay, you're right: it's a vast conspiracy. Curse you for foiling my plans of world domination! Kafziel ^Talk 09:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hmm, if you take my word, you could have created an article List of lakes in India, create a section called Kerala in it and then add the list of lakes. I don't think any bigot or otherwise would have been able to question you on that. As long as we are sure about what we are doing, I dont think we should be worried about what fuss that would create. I am not attaching you with any conspiracy, so you need not lose sleep over it. You aren't but looking at the way Wikipedia is getting popular, I am sure it will dominate the world some day :) Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know...

On 5 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Riley Ann Sawyers, 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.

--Woody (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unincorporated

Whenever someone says unincorporated X county, he or she is referring to an unincorporated section OF that county; he or she is not saying that the county is unincorporated. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say it the right way? Kafziel ^Talk 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WLA

This user wants you to join the
Los Angeles area task force.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)