User talk:Kafziel/archive2

Deleted content
Hey Kafziel,

I'm a little confused about something. Earlier today, I created a content block about Ektron. It appears that it's been deleted without any discussion. I'm a little confused because it didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion.

It seems odd because the article didn't contain marketing information and it appears that there are many articles about other much smaller companies that haven't been deleted. The one mistake I did make is naming the article incorrectly, which I placed a move request for.

Is this a normal practice or would there normally be some sort of discussion?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanMuir (talk • contribs)
 * I looked into it, and it looks like your article was speedy deleted because it had been deleted previously (October 3, 2005). You can see the original deletion discussion and today's deletion procedure here. If you feel that today's deletion was done in error, you can post a request for review at Deletion review. Hope that helps. This sort of thing happens sometimes, and I hope you won't be discouraged by it. Kafziel 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:ROYAL
Hey, thanks for the heads up about WP:Royal Kafziel. I've aken a quick look over it, and I'm going to let my thoughts about it mull in my mind while I sleep, and then write down what I think (though right now it's looking pretty good to me ;) All the best. Th ε Halo Θ 22:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

from RUSMCUSA
Dear Kafiezel,

I would like to know how to upload a file: https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/TAGD/awards/graphics/ASDR.jpg

but I need it to be as small as the other ribbons that are found in wikipedia.

it is the Army Sea Duty Ribbon.

Can you help me? Rob 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably the best way to do it is to save the image to your computer and use MS Paint or another external editor to shrink it to 106X30 pixels. That way you will upload it at the smaller size. Kafziel 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on Al-
Hi. I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article above, and expanding it further, or adding any sources appropriate for our English Wikipedia. I've already built it from a one-sentence stub using the sum total of my knowledge on the subject. Specifically, someone raised questions about the etymology of Semitic definite articles that I just couldn't answer. So I'm trying to recruit other Wikipedians with Arabic/linguistic expertise, such as yourself. Thanks very much! -Fsotrain09 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can come up with some sources. Nice job expanding the article, by the way. Kafziel 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

UK/US Terrorist Plot
Sorry I removed your comment. In reverting the attack by another user, I took out yours as well. My edit was probably almost simultaneous with yours, so I didn't see it. Dbinder (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Looking at the other comment, I figured that's what happened. Thanks for the note, though. Kafziel 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and for keeping Wiki burning
Thank you for the kind welcome. I've been a fanatic for years and just started editing articles. Thank you for all your efforts to make the world..well, a little smarter.

Military history WikiProject coordinator election – vote phase!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot – 11:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I-86
You also created a number of red links by simply replacing all instances of "(NY)" with ", New York". As long as you do that only for place names then it should be ok. --Polaron | Talk 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The red links will be fixed soon. The article is so horribly formatted that it's going to take some time. As you can see, I've been working on it with AWB for an hour, and I'm only up to the C's. Kafziel 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, can you give me some examples of red links that were caused by my changes? I'm looking at it now and I see lots of places where I fixed red links, but I don't see anything that was a blue link before that isn't now. There are lots of red links, but I don't see any caused by me. If you can show me some examples, I'll know what to watch for. Kafziel 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any instance of a multi-state road name followed by (NY). The ones in the infobox might actually be the only ones but you should check out all "Interstate X (NY)" and "US X (NY)" links to make sure. --Polaron | Talk 16:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like almost all of the other road links are suffixed with "(New York)" rather than "(NY)" so only the infobox was affected by the search and replace. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at that, those infobox entries shouldn't have an "NY" anyway. That just causes a redirect. Redirects aren't bad, but there's no need to route links through them on purpose. When I continue, I'll set the infobox to link properly, without any "NY" suffixes. Kafziel 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These redirects are intended for the state-specific articles which will be created in the future. Not changing them would be easier for editors of highway articles so please leave redirects in place. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Kafziel 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CFIF and his sockpuppet allegations
Apparently User:CFIF has a history of doing this, something I found at Requests for comment/CFIF where apparently he is engaged in another dispute. He also goes on a bit of a diatribe at User talk:Splash, who seems to be the enabler of gettting the users that disagree with him branded and banned. It appears that this user has used the same tactics in the past as he is using against me, and I only sent the article for deletion because I found it to be worthy of it while I was using the "random article" feature. He seems to be really in servere violation of WP:OWN on several occasions. What is one to do? Lost Knob 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter – Issue VI – August 2006
The August 2006 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 -- 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
The way I've seen it done primarily, people simply keep indenting as they go. First reply gets one, second gets two, etc. It's much easier to read that way. At any rate it's no big deal and I think handled adequately as it is now. Thanks. — ripley/talk 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I guess I simply disagree with your opinions about what standard practices and best practices are as it regards this topic. I think it's best left that we agree to disagree at this point. But I do appreciate your taking the time to explain why you feel the way you do! — ripley/talk 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concern behind your messages, really, and I take no offense (and hope you'll take none with me), but I think in practice this is misguided. In practice, discussions do not proceed like this:

I have an opinion. (Person one)
 * I feel this way about #1's opinion. (Person two)
 * Well I feel this way about #1's opinion. (Person three)
 * And I feel like so about #1's opinion. (Person four)


 * The standard practice is to keep indenting even if everybody's technically answering the first person. Nobody can make heads nor tails out of the three new, discrete peoples' opinions if they all nest on the same line. — ripley/talk 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, in practice this is not how it's done (perhaps, if someone else nests further out then it makes it understandable for the next person to take it back a colon). My extra-nested comment makes perfect sense in context; it's not rendered unintelligible because it's not slotted in the place where you think it ought to be. Again, in practice your notion is misguided, in my opinion, though I appreciate the spirit behind your messages to me and wish you all the best. — ripley/talk 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I'm fully aware and comprehending of the way you think things work, though I appreciate the time you're taking. I simply disagree, and don't have much else to say. All the best — ripley/talk 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:3RR
Thanks for the tip that you left on my talk page. The anon edits appear to be vandalism to me, but I wasn't sure if outsiders would see it the same way (because it wasn't page blanking, profanity, or something similar). I'll keep your suggestion in mind though. Thanks again. Ufwuct 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I tend to give less leeway to anon editors, but I think this is a case of silly vandalism. Different countries don't share populations. Looks to me like someone is making a not-so-subtle sarcastic comment about the cultural situation in Southern California. I'll keep an eye on the page as well. Kafziel 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Kafziel,

Thank you for your greeting. I didn't see a way to reply directly to the message you sent so I hope that you'll recall my username. I will look at the links you provided and I hope that there wasn't something in my edits that prompted the message beyond community spirit but if there is, I am very open to feedback and guidance so let me know. I like the concept of Wikipedia and while I doubt I will be able to devote significant blocks of time to perform all the editing I'd like, I want to make sure the editing I perform is up to snuff.

Thanks, Onemachete.
 * Hello again. You can reply to messages on your talk page simply by clicking the "edit this page" tab as you would on any article.
 * I found you because I watch the Thief page and saw your additions there. You haven't made any mistakes that I've seen; the links I provided are just references that I like to give everyone, because most editors come across those issues at one point or another. Keep up the good work, and feel free to leave me a message whenever you have a question or need anything. I'm always happy to help. Kafziel 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Coke GA — Thanks!
As the primary editor on New Coke, I would like to thank you for passing the nom.

It is particularly nice to see the pass come from someone in your neighborhood.

There is still more work and research I would like to do (I have it as one of several in mind for future peer review and FA), but it's nice to get what I and others have done recognized. Daniel Case 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NFT
Hi there! No, I'm not pissed off or anything. Indeed, that one guy's comment at the talk page bottom doesn't mean much. However, the reason I consider NFT a guideline is that it's common practice. Indeed, investigation shows that of several hundred AFDs in which it is mentioned, 90-95% are closed as 'delete'. I haven't seen much of the "countless AfD discussions [where] it has been quite clearly indicated as not being a guideline"; if I missed them, please point them out to me.

The two parts of the talk page you pointed to are not in disagreement with that – one is about renaming the page to drop the 'school' part (which was indeed opposed, but this has no bearing on the page's status) and the other said it shouldn't be a guideline because it was too new and not advertised. Clearly it is no longer new, and it is in use. Other than that I don't see any substantial dissent on the talk page. The page doesn't need to demonstrate a vigorous assent on its talk page if it is heavily in use in other places.

HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't point out examples from AfD, but they're there. I simply don't have the time to go through every AfD I've ever participated in and find the examples. I'm not saying that articles were kept because NFT isn't a guideline; they were deleted because they failed other criteria. The discussions just pointed out that NFT was not a valid reason for deletion because it's only an essay. It's a good essay—I've quoted it myself many times—but it's still just an essay.
 * The renaming proposal doesn't have to do with this situation on the surface, but if you look at the comments you'll see opinions (mine included) that it's meant to be informal and not a guideline. Others agree, including comments made in an older move proposal on the same page. People opposed the move to more "PC" titles because it's just an essay. I would probably support making it a guideline (although it would probably be just as redundant as the other essays you've put merge tags on) but there's no consensus as yet to do that. Kafziel 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is the point of disagreement: in my opinion, Wikipedia is less formal than you appear to think. A guideline, by its very nature, is informal (if it were not, it would be policy; see WP:POL). You don't need any kind of formal rule to delete anything in WP:AFD, you simply need a reason. Any reason will do; if it's a bad reason, people will disagree and the article will end up kept. So the argument that "this is not a valid reason because it's only an essay" is fallacious; AFD does not, and never has, enumerate the possible reasons and exclude all others.
 * I agree with your second point (but many people on AfD do not), but I definitely disagree with your idea that guidelines are completely informal. An essay is informal. A guideline is less formal than policy, but guidelines are built by consensus, not by one person's whim and a lack of consensus against them. Changes to them require consensus, whereas essays can be nothing but the opinion of the author. That's what is all about. Kafziel 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. However, I also believe that NFT is consensual because of (1) its widespread usage, and (2) the lack of any objections to its content (there are some objections to technicalities, such as whether it has been discussed long enough). If you can find me someone who does think that Wikipedia is for "things made up in school one day", I'd like to discuss it with them. I have looked for such a person but have failed to find one among established editors.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If a reason is used (and agreed with) often enough it becomes a guideline by default. That's not formal, that just means that we've seen it is a viable way of doing things. We've seen plenty of times in the past that if some schoolkid makes an article on some word he made up, the article gets deleted. Hence, as a guideline for future schoolkids, don't make such articles or they'll likely get deleted. Or as a guideline for editors, if you see an article on such, you can mark it for deletion and it is unlikely that people will object. HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it was fine the way it was. Making something a guideline doesn't mean its any more weight than an essay, but it does mean it's expected to meet a certain agreed-upon standard of quality, which NFT does not. Kafziel 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking over the page once more I agree that it could use some copyediting. For starters I have removed the extraneous links. Your help is, of course, welcome.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that whoever it was that initiated the latest move proposal on the talk page would have a problem with NFT being a guideline. The title is not very professional (not even by Wiki standards) and the whole reason the move request failed was that it didn't need to be professional-looking because it wasn't a guideline. We liked the sardonic tone it had, and we liked the way the title pokes fun at school children, our number one source for nonsense. That kind of stuff doesn't really fly with guidelines. If it's going to be a guideline, I guess another move request is in order. Either way, whether it's essay/guidline or current title/new title, some discussion should be going on. Again, what's the hurry? I know it's not technically required, but why not give the people who worked on this stuff a little courtesy? Kafziel 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Just read a comment you left on someone else's talk page, and I have a related question. You said that if an article fits into a subcategory, it should not be placed into the main category. Why not?

I feel that having it in both would be better. Just because something is, for example 'US marine' stuff does not make it NOT 'US military' stuff – right? So why not both categs? What are the downsides you people (I am aware that this is a wider wikipedia policy, not meant as an attack) see to it?

Cheers MadMaxDog 11:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's a particular article you think should have both for some reason, there's no problem there. The standards for categorization are just a guideline, and exceptions can be made. As far as the reasoning behind the guideline, I suppose it's something to do with bandwidth or some other computer-related thingamajig, about which I am (obviously) not an expert. Anyway, the bottom line is, if you feel that an article should have both, go for it. Kafziel 22:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My problem is that I naturally think ANY article further down the branch of the categorization should also have all the superior category tags. I agree with you that it is probably a technical / administrative problem. After all, TECHNICALLY, the are all part of the superior category already. You just can't see them in the listing at the moment. MadMaxDog 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about the GA status of Barny Boatman
Howdy! I recently failed the article Ram Vaswani due to concerns about the lack reliable sources and lack of a sufficent lead. One of the editors on that article's talk page put this article and it's GA status up as a comparision point. In looking at the Boatman article, I see that it has the same issue with using blogs/internet forum as the majority of it's sources, which don't stack up with the guidelines listed in WP:RS. I also have concerns that the article's lead doesn't fit with the guidelines at WP:LEAD-namely because it doesn't assert the subject's notability and why one should want to read the article. My concerns may lead me to want to de-list the article, but I would want to discuss that with you first for your views. I appreciate your time. Agne 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have expanded the lead, and raised a discussion re: reliable sources at Talk:Reliable sources. Essexmutant 10:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for invitation
Hi Kafziel,

how nice of you :) I've already visited some links you have posted to me. I do not find this information boring (ok, maybe a little bit;)). I have contributed to disscusion on some article but noone responded to my post. In my opinion, this article should be changed but I prefer to wait for author(s) reply and discuss the changes. How long should I wait? I'm not a native, and I'm aware that my English is far from being perfect (and yes, that's an euphemism). Do you think that I should change the content of the articles freely hoping that someone will correct my style, punctuation etc.?

regards Glaukon 08:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted a reply to your comment at Talk:Absinthe. I don't have the expertise to reply to your concerns at Talk:Paraconsistent logic, but that may be a language gap as well. You can of course go ahead and change small things but I recommend seeing what other users have to say before making any big changes. Good luck! Kafziel 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing
Hi,

it's me again. How to put things like: this user is a native english speaker etc. on your userpage? I was looking for some hint on the wikipedia help pages but I haven't find anything on the subject. Glaukon 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. See Userboxes for info on those. Toward the bottom of that page you will find links to different categories of boxes (languages, interests, etc). Just choose the ones you want and add them to your user page by editing it the way you would any other article. If you need some help getting started, let me know one you'd like to have and I'll put it on your user page for you. Then you can see how the coding works and add any other ones you want. Kafziel 18:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations on GA's
So far, i'm not delisting them just on that, it's just several of these articles are not only non-inline, they have very few references in the first place. I've warned several other GA's about the change though, because they have a bunch of refs, their just not inline. Homestarmy 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no set number of refs required for an article. If two or three books contain all the necessary information, then so be it. If you can point out something that is definitely not verifiable based on the sources provided, then fine. But there's no policy that says "Every article needs 20 sources." Kafziel 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Local interest
I've been doing some research on Queensboro Furnace, in the hopes of making it into an article. There's some material in the Integrated West Point Cultural Resources Management Plan, which refers to the following publication:
 * Hartwick, C. L., and R. L. Porter 1996 Archaeological Investigations at the Queensboro Ironworks Historic District, U.S. Military Academy Reservation, Town of Highlands, Orange County, New York. Rutgers University Center for Public Archaeology. WCH Industries, Inc., in association with Boston Affiliates, Inc. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.

Since you presumably have experience trying to get things from the military paperwork jungle, do you have any idea how or if I could obtain a copy? Do I need to file a FOIA request with the New York District? Thanks, Choess 04:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would recommend contacting Joseph Blumberg at Rutgers. He's the Science Communications manager (including archaeology) and he might be able to help you out. His email address is blumberg@ur.rutgers.edu. Kafziel 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi Kafziel

Thanks very much for your welcome, and apologies for my very slow reply: I've been without broadband for a while, but hopefully everything is back on track now.

I'm very much looking forward to contributing, and thanks for the links to the guidance.

Regards

BlueEvo2 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you're up and running. Happy Wikiing! Kafziel 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

replacing copywrite-challenged article
Hi Kafziel

regarding the Socially Responsible Investing article, of which the current Wiki article was tagged as a possible copyright violation (not clear why, perhaps content lifted from a commercial SRI advisor's site?):

You said:

If the new article being worked on at the subpage Talk:Socially responsible investing/Temp is deemed to be an acceptable replacement for the article, please do so before renominating it.

what do you mean "do so"? Do what??

The replacement article (the Talk:.../Temp version) appears to be recreated from scratch by someone, and is, to my eye, completely distict from the challenged article. That's why I initiated the request to consider posting it.

It seems important to get a "good" article up on this important topic. (my interest is as a values-based investor, and editor of a published by Bloomberg on the topic)

thanks Jim
 * By "do so" I mean replace the article that is currently a copyright violation with the new version. You nominated it as a good articles, but temporary pages can't be candidates for Good Articles.
 * If it seems important to you to get a good article up on this "important" topic, then to be honest you probably shouldn't be working on it. If you think it's important, chances are you won't be able to write an unbiased article.
 * Wikipedia is not a means of advertising; it is not a place to tell everyone about something you think is great. There should be no links to companies in the article, no advice, nothing about how much more responsible and rewarding social investing is. Companies that offer it or companies that use their services should generally not be named specifically, and it certainly should not be implied that they are somehow better than those who don't. Even the title is unacceptable, as it suggests that there is something more "responsible" about supporting religion than caring about money, when in reality the definition of responsible behavior varies between cultures and social groups. Every statement must cite a noted and reliable source that is independent of the subject – not the website of a social investing company or someone's personal opinion.
 * If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest taking some time to read the guidelines I gave you and see how things are done. Pay particular attention to this one and this one. Wander around, start small, and learn the ropes before trying to write an article like this. If you continue this article in the same vein as before, it will probably end up being deleted entirely and you will have wasted a lot of time and effort. Kafziel 23:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Google test
I added a google test on Talk:Giorgio Orsini – Juraj Dalmatinac. You might want to check it out. --Dijxtra 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to support your proposal. Kafziel 17:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * n.b.: It's not my proposal, but nevermind ;-) --Dijxtra 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel and apologies for changing my comment several seconds after you had already replied to it. The change to my comment is merely intended to be a clarification for those who will read the discussion later. Hope this is ok. RedZebra 17:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. A good clarification for those who don't want to click the link. Kafziel 17:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My Problem with CFIF has escalated
Apparently CFIF and his lacky admin pal Splash have not only acted to ban me in a violation of WP:POINT, but also in a way that exceeds an administrator's authority. It seems that anyone who tampers with CFIF's articles gets labeled as a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. This is barmy nonsense and has been going on for too long and this rouge user and rouge admin need to be dealt with.

What follows is a message I have left on both their talk pages. Lost Knob (wrongly banned by Splash so anon) 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To Splash and CFIF
Of course I would sign anything that would expose your conduct, as I find your behaviour reprehensible. You have seriously abused your administrative duties. Apparently CFIF turns to you whenever he feels that one of his bloody articles is attacked. It appears that this Spotteddogsdotorg person is some bloody Yank nutter anorak who is obsessed with American television stations. CFIF’s behaviour is also reprehensible as he tars and feathers anyone who disagrees with his bloody narrow Floridian world view.

We do not need articles about every barmy local Yank weather presenter and news reader. The majority of them, Messrs. Dellegatto and Leep included, fail most of the established biographical inclusion protocols. Instead of chasing ghosts you and CFIF should be working out a consensus for inclusion of these Yank television persons. It appears to be rather complicated, as it isn’t an easy as say newsreaders and weather presenters in the various ITV regions, since there are thousands of these people in the States at hundreds of little local television stations. Just because you see someone on the telly every day doesn’t make them noteworthy on a global scale or even a national scale in America.

I would be happy to assist in hashing out some policy on this rather large problem. Perhaps if the community comes together and has a good think on the problem we can finally put this bloody nonsense in the cupboard. We cannot have anoraks dictating policy, we need a full on view from all sides and from as many places, both inside and outside the States to figure out what is worthy and what is not worthy of inclusion.

CFIF’s behaviour seems to have engendered a lot of animosity and amazingly he has nary a yellow card. He really needs to have a time out to reflect on his behaviour and why he has caused a lot of aggro among others.

Thanks to you and CFIF and your bloody nonsense, I forgot the reason I even came to Wikipedia as from the start I had to defend myself against your false and baseless allegations. I do hope that we can stop this bloody trench warfare and behave like civilised Englishmen. Lost Knob (wrongly banned by Splash so anon) 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel the block is unfair, you can always request a checkuser investigation on yourself. If you're not a sockpuppet, that should clear it up. Getting around the block by using an anymous IP addresses will only lead to more trouble. Kafziel 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User page
Hi Kafziel:

So, what do you think of my article on Linguistic Anthropology? The Society for Linguistic Anthropology now links directly to it.

What I have no clue about is "user pages" as a genre. Would this be appropriate?

Jim Wilce is an anthropologist—a linguistic anthropologist who specializes in language and interaction in medical and psychiatric settings, in emotion and language, etc. He contributed the article on linguistic anthropology. His article on drive theory can't seem to escape from its status in nowhere-land. His entré into Wiki-land occurred in June 2006.

Jim

Your usermessage box
I've borrowed (and changed slightly) your usermessage from the top of your talk page -- thanks! And, per your request, I've answered your earlier question to me on my talk page ;-).

Atlant 14:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

LMS Jubilee Class 5731 Perseverance
I've started a discussion on this article's talk page, querying the significance of this loco. As you created the article, I'd be interested in hearing your views. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of nominating this article for deletion. My concern is that if too many locos of less significance get "stub" entries, someone will try and get the lot removed. I'll try and find some other infomation about the loco ewhich isn't on the Jubilee website to try to pad it out a bit. Incidentally, I've just reverted some vandalism on your user page for you – hope you don't mind. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever you decide is fine with me as far as the article goes. If it turns out that there's no more verifiable info out there, maybe a redirect is the best way to go. I have no problem with that. Thanks for the vandalism catch, too. Good lookin' out, as they say on the streets. Kafziel Talk 17:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you. And Hello. Most of what I've done is on the discusion boards. I only have proposed a merge of a few pages. I am not certain I have anything to add yet. It seems that citations will always be dificult. I have been reading Wiki for years and love the setup and content.

Thanks again and take care.

WikiProject Military history Newsletter – Issue VII – September 2006
The September 2006 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 – 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Mormonism
It looks as if all my requests have already been removed. I can appreciate your examples. I have now read over your personal page and let me say I am very impressed. I will not put up a request for a merge on LDS pages again (per your suggestions). It seems to me however that the Mormons have gone overboard on their pages. I would "request" (you seem to be a busy man) you to show me any other religon in Wiki that have as many pages as the Mormons. I respect this community so I will only put disagreements on discussion boards from now on. I will not repeat the requests however I do still believe they should merge. Thanks for your time.

by the way are you agnostic? I am way with you on the Wikipedians who support legalizing cannabis.

PEACE


 * It's not really a matter of making sure every religion has an equal (or even similar) number of articles. Some need more than others, and some are better represented simply because there are more Wikipedians of that particular faith who are motivated to write new articles. If you look at Category:Roman Catholic Church and its 17 sub-categories, you'll find hundreds of articles. Category:Judaism has just as many, divided into 34 sub-categories. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there's no limit to the number of articles that can spin off from a central topic (as long as they meet the notability guidelines). If a subject has more articles than another that doesn't imply that it's more important, just that more people are interested in writing about it. I think Star Wars might have more articles than Mormonism; that's just the way it goes.
 * Yes, I am agnostic. I was raised Baptist, but after some things I saw when I was in the military I couldn't be a part of organized religion.
 * Anyway, thanks for the understanding and for being willing to use talk pages to suggest changes. I think you'll like it here, once you get the hang of it. Good luck! Kafziel Talk 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Heroes
[This paragraph posted at User talk:ThuranX:] There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I'd like to clear it up here because you only have one change left before 3RR. The press release quote from ACS on the talk page is not a citation. It's a quote from an unnamed source; basically, the opposite of a citation. I already pointed out the only place on the Internet where that phrase appears, and it's just a blog. The entire first paragraph at Verifiability deals with exactly this situation. Every statement needs to be verifiable, and anything that isn't can be removed. I think I was pretty clear on the article's talk page; my point seemed to make sense to ACS, as he removed the "drug-induced" part himself. I don't have a problem with the content, as long as we have a reliable source. Until then, the claim should not be replaced. I can see you've been editing here for a while, so I'm sure you understand. Thanks. Kafziel Talk 02:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I understand, I've also seen that press release, though I cna't find it now either. I suspect the 'drug-induced' part is getting NBC into a lot of trouble, and they'll be writing it out fast. Finally, please remember WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. Thank You. ThuranX 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aw, don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do, and you've been around long enough to know that. If you can't find the source, then the info can't stay. It violates policy, and it's as simple as that. This has nothing to do with assuming anything, and nothing to do with being friendly. Kafziel Talk 10:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Microorganism as this week's WP:AID winner
Davodd 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support!

Atlant 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! You've always been courteous and helpful when I've worked with you. RfAs are definitely no fun at all, so I wish you luck! Kafziel Talk 13:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!


 * Atlant 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Fanon deletion tag

 * Erm, would you mind telling me why you placed and afd tag on the Star Wars Fanon article? Jasca Ducato 18:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It fails the notability criteria for websites. I got a bit of feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars before I did it, and nobody there or at the AfD discussion has disagreed with my assessment so far. Kafziel Talk 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Juicebox
Offensive terms per nationality

Please don't tell me that the change I submitted (to juicebox) was any different than the entire link I provided. If you consider my definition vandalism, then this entire page (and others) should be removed or edited as well. As for modifying the other person's userpage, that was wrong, but it wasn't meant as a malicious attack, more of a light-hearted fun-poking.
 * It has nothing to do with being offensive. This simply isn't the Urban Dictionary. That's been explained to you already, by the user whose page you vandalized. It's important that you stop edit warring, inserting original research, and vandalizing pages (whatever your excuse might be). Kafziel Talk 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding my arguement. The definition of juicebox I added is equally as valid as the racial slurs on another page on wikipedia.  How is mine innapropriate for this website, yet the other one is?
 * You seem to be mistaking the existence of one page for permission to add more junk wherever you want. It's a very common mistake. The editors at the racial slurs page have a constant struggle to keep it free from original research and simply made-up slang. I can't vouch for how successful they are; I don't really have any interest in the subject, and as far as I know I've never edited that page or implied in any conversations that I support its contents. For the most part, though, it seems that the slang terms there are verifiable. This juicebox thing isn't, at least not from any reputable source. Even if it was, this isn't the place for defining new words, new uses for old words, or even old uses for old words. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Lists are lists. I don't like them, but they're allowed if they are verifiable. Dictionary definitions are a whole other matter, and they're not allowed. Kafziel Talk 05:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I've revised. Topics like this get my dander up.--Rosicrucian 15:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

L.A. city name vote
Since you recently voted on the Philadelphia article name change, I thought you might be interested in participating on the vote to make a similar name change for Los Angeles. See Talk:Los Angeles, California. Also, if you put my user page on your watchlist, you'll see notifications of other similar votes. --Serge 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For your support. I think I'm going to back off now, because this is obviously a emotional topic. --Serge 19:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably not a bad idea in this case. Things are getting a little bit heated. I really don't see that you've done anything wrong—there's no "minimum waiting period" between move requests, and if there was one it would certainly be less than 3 months—but in the interests of the poll and your own sanity, it might be good to step back and let the chips fall where they may. I had planned to do the same, but I didn't think it was right for him to threaten you that way. Good luck. Kafziel Talk 19:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel
It is no more or less unsourced than the statements describing the legend, and yet stranfgely, you did not remove those. I object to POV selective removal of some material while leaving others. However, on the centralpoint: it's not possible to source a statement concerning majorities in a direct way, but standard encyclopedias such as the EB are generally taken as syntheses of scholarly opinion. The EB does not even take note of Christian legend. Paul B 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. WP:V is an official policy and is not negotiable. And I'm not required to remove all POV from every article I touch; if I find some, I remove it. If you find some, you can remove it yourself. I'm sure the Christian legend can be sourced. I'm also sure that the "most historians" statement can not. I'm agnostic, so I have no interest in Catholic legends and I tend to agree that it's probably a bunch of crap. But I'm not a valid source. The claim needs to be sourced, or it needs to come out. Kafziel Talk 03:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I've changed the "most people" stuff to a more specific reason for why it's doubtful, and I've cited a source for my statement. I hope that solution is acceptable to you. If you have specific issues with other parts of the text then let me know and I'll see what I can do to clean it up. Kafziel Talk 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletions in Himalaya
To a certain extent I agree, however your efforts would have been far mor productive if you removed redundant topics, the same topic is repeated numerous times or at least you could have asked for consolidation. Not ever cut and past was exactly the same, please be consious of this especially when pertinent data is being passed on. (Gowron 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Redundant topics should never be removed; sometimes different people bring up the same subject more than once. But you don't need to copy and paste the same thing multiple times. Just answer the current discussion, not the ones that are months or years old. Kafziel Talk 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By default using your ouwn words "redundant topics" should be removed (if thats what you call information/opinion added by users to the discussion), old useful comments should be kept but probably condensed otherwise the discussion gets clogged up with stuff that nobody has the courage to remove. Keep the discussion page shorter, especially when topics are repeated so often, hence why I put an answer in each as it was pertinet to each.  The Discussion page is currently clogged with multiple Himalaya vs Himalayas conversations.  Concentrate on the entire page and not pick on a single user who has something to add to the discussion.  (Gowron 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
 * I called what you did [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Himalayas&diff=82898019&oldid=82881692 redundant statements], not "redundant topics". As I said, redundant topics are fine and are often created because different users have the same question and don't notice that it's already been answered. That doesn't mean you need to go back into old discussions and paste the same answer three times. At this point you can really just drop the issue; it's pretty clear that what you did wasn't necessary (you've said so yourself) and I know you didn't do it to purposely disrupt the page, so it's okay. Don't worry about it. Kafziel Talk 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ruslana
Talking about not every single (let alone every song!) not to have an own article on wikipedia, could you help me by editing to Ruslana? We have this fan who is trying to be very helpful, which is not bad at all, but he's making like many articles for songs that he doesn't even add any information to. I'm talking about that he's making articles for remixes of songs, other released editions of an album (which i've taken care of by now) and so on. If u could help me by cleaning up the Ruslana article itself, it would be great. Thanks! -- Luigi-ish 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just clearing up the template when I noticed that all the remixes on the album Club'in have an article, that's why I called u for help. -- Luigi-ish 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's pretty crazy. I'm about to head out but I'll take a look at it this evening and see if I can help. Kafziel Talk 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII – October 2006
The October 2006 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 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe
I cannot find the article at Scientific American, but here is the article reference. After this article, people began making it and got sick.

Arnold, W. M. (1989) Scientific American 260 (June), 112-117.

http://www.sciam.com/

Another young man having CNS problems due to Thujone.

http://hbd.org/brewery/library/absfaq.html

http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=16080

http://www.gumbopages.com/food/beverages/absinthe-heads.html

After what happened to Van Gogh and others, this should be included, not deleted.

Absinthe is mostly harmless without Thujone in it.

I have seen many TV documentaries like Dateline NBC & 20/20 on this great danger.

I never had this Absinthe, but I would like to try it, once.

I am very sorry that I cannot find references to every addition or change I make at Wikipedia.

Semper Fidelis :)

Mark

On SRI and Bus ethics
SRI

On the SRI revisions, the additions I made clarify what is a bad article, one that was rewritten from material I wrote (see my statement on SRI b4 Congress at http://financialservices.house.gov/banking/61500cun.htm

Now, I am happy to revise this artice and to give Wiki shared rights to the text.

On BUS Ethics

Again, I think listing recent ethical lapses gives examples of what the article is talking about. And, again, I am happy to revise this artice and to give Wiki shared rights to the text.

CIRM

Cirm 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't give away the rights, because you need to prove you wrote it (and not just to me). You might be able to contact the legal department to try to establish yourself as the author (although, generally speaking, we still prefer original content). In any event, multiple articles should not contain redundant information, and massive copy/paste jobs like that create a lot of work for other editors in determining copyright status and Wikifying the content.
 * You may also want to take a look at our guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source and acceptable uses of external links, as well as the policy on spam.
 * Above all, I'd simply suggest spending some more time here, learning the ropes, reading the guidelines and talk pages, and making minor edits. The guidelines will become clear once you get the hang of things. Thanks, and good luck! Kafziel Talk 16:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I should clarify one point: it doesn't matter if you wrote the articles in question. External links should only be used if they provide unique information that can't possibly be included in the Wikipedia article itself. Commercial links should be avoided at all costs. Kafziel Talk 17:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The article simply rewrites what I wrote in my testimony b4 Congress. A link to that testimony can't be considered commercial, since it resides on the website of a (somewhat) non-commecial entity.

You need to rethink your attitude about commercial liks. Wiki abounds with them – articles on corporations that link to their websites being one example. In this case, linking to other sites with comprehensive, unique, and, yes, somewhat redundant, infomation is, I think, valuable.

There are well established policies for allowing Wiki to use contents written by others, which we have activated.

The idea is to provide comprehensive information on the topic. This will involve rewriting a badly written, but important, article. This cannot be done if we stick to a "no commercial sites" policy and ignore all links, esp those to govt agencies.

I will look to execute a complete rewrite.

Cirm 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I urge you again to take the time to read the guidelines that have been presented to you. Your comments make it clear that you're not familiar with our policies. If you continue to insert commercial links and copyrighted text into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nobody wins if that happens.
 * As for the other articles that link to commercial sites, that's their problem. I acknowledge that it's a constant battle to keep those sites off of Wikipedia, but two wrongs do not make a right. You aren't the first person I've warned about spam and copyright violations, and you will not be the last, so don't take it personally. These are not arbitrary rules that I made up myself. Read the policies, learn the ropes. That's all I can suggest. Kafziel Talk 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Germany
Dear Kafziel, I would like to sprotect the page. Please just look at the today history of that particular page. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 18:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That happens with the articles on pretty much every country. It can be exhausting to revert so much vandalism, but that's the only way to keep the encyclopedia open for all to edit. Take a look at the history for today's featured article of the day, Compact Cassette. It's horrible! But we still have to keep it open. That's why it's so important for people like you and me to watch the recent changes page (and our own watchlists) to keep an eye out for vandalism. It's a never-ending job, but that's the way they like it.
 * By the way, I'm not an administrator, so I wouldn't be able to protect the page for you. You can place a request at Requests for page protection but I doubt very much whether it would be accepted. Just keep fighting the good fight, and hang in there! Kafziel Talk 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's true. After seeing that page, I realize the dimensions of vandalism. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

COMPACT CASSETTE article revision
Thanks for your message, Kafziel :) To clarify my edit, (re. rogue characters) I didn't intentionally remove any "special" characters, just a facetious remark someone had put in under "Features of the cassette". They read, "- 	al;sfkdj;lasdkfjaslkj; sir clock is king of the portal". I guess this was vandalism, wasn't it? I ought to have logged in by name, not by my web address. You know, I cannot make out why someone targets a particular innocuous article like COMPACT CASSETTE and mutilates it. Just perverse minds and boredom, I imagine. Cheers, Trevor H. 00:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC), who initiated the "bruxism" article way back, but my main input is tidying up topics on W-P.

Fannie, SRI and Corp Ethics article revisions
Lookit, the idea is to get experts to add value, and, to be nice about this, you know little about either Fannie Mae, Corporate Ethics or SRI. You seem to have a biased viewpoint on the subjects. Perhaps there are other reasons for your edits to my contributions. While I appreciate your passion, I'd suggest you calm down. At this point, given your attitude, I will call in an objective third party, since I will continue to edit articles where I can add value. And, again, we have given Wiki full copyright privileges to use the articles we have written. Feel free to contact me via my discussion page. Cirm 05:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Global Settlement revisions
The list of incidents on this page provide background and current information on the environment that gave rise to the settlement. Please show me where, EXACTLY, the copyright violation is. Provide the source document or a link therto. If you cannot, this is not a copyright violation.

Again, you appear to have a biased viewpoint. Perhaps you are being paid to remove links to my site. I will call in a third party. Just because you think something is spam does not make it so.

Cirm 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm being paid to remove links to your site. I started editing here a year ago and racked up over 8,000 edits just so I'd be able to remove links to your site. Right.
 * You already called in a third party. That's not going to help your case. In fact, a third party (Kuru)is who first removed the copyright violation from Global settlement and noted where it can be found. Kafziel Talk 14:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, please show me where, EXACTLY, the copyright violation is. Provide the source document or a link therto.

Cirm 14:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kuru already began a discussion on the article's talk page about it and noted in his edit summary that it was from creativeinvest.com. I'm not going to help you linkspam Wikipedia by including a direct link. I strongly suggest you stop adding it or you may be blocked under the three reverts rule. Kafziel Talk 14:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem: THAT FULL LISTING IS NOT ON CREATIVEINVEST.COM. I know. I run the site. You and Kuru are both WRONG. This points to a lack of accuracy, which points to a biased viewpoint.

Cirm 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true spammer. Kafziel Talk 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, show me the data. Perhaps you recieved some spam from someone claiming to be creativeinvest.com. We have had that problem. Perhaps you are oversensitive for other reasons. Again, I'd suggest you calm down.

14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at my user page and contributions you'll see that I have almost nothing to do with articles related to economics or investments. As I said, this is nothing personal; this is about removing copyright violations and spam from Wikipedia. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. There are proper channels (links to which have already been provided to you) for getting permission to post copyrighted information and there are standards for external links and spam. Your persistence in the matter, and the fact that your account has been used for nothing but these edits, makes it clear that you have a biased viewpoint. Not me. Kafziel Talk 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it's probably not in your best interest to threaten anyone on Wikipedia. This is a difference of opinion. What you think is spam is not always spam. Given your threats, I have renewed my call for a third party review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirm (talk • contribs)
 * They're not threats. They're warning templates. Kafziel Talk 15:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you for links showing the specific copyright violation. You cannot provide them because, well, there is no copyright violation. I have asked you to show where and how links to the SEC and US Congress websites can be considered span. Again, you cannot do so. I understand you passion and hate spam as much as you, apparently, do. This is simply not a spam case.

Cirm 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't try to make this about the SEC. This is about your excessive and persistent linking to your creativeinvest website. I haven't reverted some of the other changes you've made. Yes, I do feel that it's a copyvio to post giant blocks of text like you've been doing at Global settlement, but the real issue is the linkspam. Creativeinvest is not an acceptable source or a necessary external link. But you insist on putting it all over every article you touch. That's spam. Kafziel Talk 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To revisit the above, I have asked you for links showing a specific copyright violation. You cannot provide it because there is no copyright violation. I have asked you to show how links to US Govt websites can be considered span. Again, you cannot do so. This is about proving that what is called a copyright violation is, in fact, a copyright violation. Its about proving that what you think is spam is, in fact, spam. Finally, this is about whether links to external govt websites can be considered spam. I think they are not spam, by definition. You, having in my opinion a rigid, biased, viewpoint, think that any links referencing creative invest are, by definition, sneaky spam. This includes testimony before the US Congress and testimony in US Federal Court. I will leave it to a third party to sort out.

Cirm 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's regrettable that you weren't able to stop reverting Global settlement until the discussion was completed. I don't think I can do anything else to help you. Kafziel Talk 15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What's truly regrettable is that you weren't able to address the issues noted above: a link showing a specific copyright violation. There is no copyright violation. I have asked you to show how links to US Govt websites can be considered span. You cannot do so.

Cirm 16:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

hawking died this morning
from cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.232.8.8 (talk • contribs)
 * Not the CNN I'm looking at: . No mention of it on any news sites, his personal web page, or on Google. Whenever someone famous dies, like Steve Irwin or Corey Lidle, there's always a flurry of activity on the page that usually lasts all day. That was my first clue.
 * You should also be aware that placing false information in articles about living people can get you immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vandalism is never good, but vandalizing biographies is taken very seriously. Kafziel Talk 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

24.173.8.254 link spam
Thanks for removing the book spam link from Jackson, Wyoming. We had an edit conflict on the user's talk page where I was commenting on the exact same thing, and by the time I got back to the article, you had already cleaned it up. I guess I should type faster next time. :)
 * No problem, glad to help. She was all over those Wyoming pages! Kafziel Talk 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Orange County template
Hey, I just created this. Now we have one too!

Feel free to go put it in every one of the articles on the named communities. And while you're at it, put on the talk pages that don't have it yet (most of them, IOW). Daniel Case 04:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice! I'll put them in wherever I see they're missing. Kafziel Talk 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Absinthe "vandalism"
No, the original article in 2002 was actually in Commonwealth English. And just by counting the countries mentioned in the article it should be clear that countries speaking that dialect of English outnumber those that do not. I've given justification. If you are still insistant that American English by some stretch of the imagination is more appropriate, you should justify it on the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjk91 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, you've given no justification. The original stub might have used Commonwealth English, but since it's been a full article it has used American English. The number of countries mentioned in the article is irrelevant. It also mentions France and Switzerland, but that doesn't mean the article should be in French. There's no need to discuss this on the article's talk page; you're the only one who seems to have a problem with it, so your user page is the proper place.
 * Also, you shouldn't call other people's changes vandalism unless they really are. You didn't "revert" anything with your first change, and you are the one who made the change so you need to discuss it on the talk page. Kafziel Talk 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your principle that if in doubt, leave alone. However, we clearly have differing opinions on where exactly this article started. I could be really awkward and insist on the article being perfect British English, but I am aware that not many people speak that, and am instead opting for an umbrella dialect which most of the English-speaking world use. The article is on a french alcoholic beverage. Sadly the article is on English Wikipedia, and so I've opted for the dialect with the greatest number of speakers. That is my justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjk91 (talk • contribs)
 * It's clear from your contributions that pretty much all you do here is try to bully articles into using British English. I don't have especially strong feelings about the language issue, but I don't like it when users claim to be reverting vandalism when in reality they are making changes. I also don't want to get into an edit war with you, so I'm leaving your most recent change until other users can have some input.
 * By the way: you can sign your comments by typing the ~ four times in a row. Kafziel Talk 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I need to defend my record to you, but it is true that I do modify dialects where I feel it is appropriate. It would appear that our two most recent edits have been erased from the history page anyway. Thank you for your information on signing. Cjk91 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To keep things on one page I will reply here. The article started from a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition which is why it was in british english to begin with.  The 1911 Encyclopædia had only a small paragraph or two about absinthe and currently only about a sentence of the original version remains.  I don't have a strong opinion either way, however I have reverted the british english to keep things consistent as most of the absinthe articles are in american english and most additions will be made in that english.  The one issue I do have whether many americans know the term "aniseed" especially since "anise" is commonly used throughout wikipedia. -- Ari 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern there. Particularly given that I didn't know what "anise" was. I do believe though that fewer people would be confused by "aniseed" than "anise". Cjk91 08:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that most literature uses "anise." Frankly I see no reason to use commonwealth english, since those who actually make contributions to the article will be the ones who need to remember to keep it consistent.  Perhaps the best idea instead of hastily changing the spelling and calling it "vandalism" (which it is not) you can put it up to vote in the absinthe talk page. -- Ari 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cjk91 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (please stop)
 * I'm not sure what you think you'll get out of that. Falsely accusing others of vandalism is, in itself, a bad mark on you. The warnings I placed on your page only came after a long while of trying to talk this out, as well as gaining consensus on the article's talk page. I've been nothing but patient with you (I even taught you how to sign your posts). Placing warnings on my page won't get you anywhere. Kafziel Talk 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cjk91 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (last warning)

Equally I am afraid I cannot see how you can justify reverting my changes. I have given my reasons. Cjk91 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And a bunch of other people have given theirs, too. Nobody agrees with you. What makes your opinion more important than everyone else? Kafziel Talk 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You do not even know which dialect of English you are arguing against. I made the edits I did because I genuinely believed (and still do believe) that it will enable more users to understand better. You need to accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjk91 (talk • contribs)
 * I have no doubt that you think it's helpful. You're just wrong, and edit warring is not the way to go about making it happen. Discussing changes doesn't mean posting a statement and then going ahead and doing whatever you want. Discussion goes both ways, and the article should be left as it was before you got here until the subject is settled. None of the reasons you've given are acceptable reasons for changing the language of a page. But I know you're not here to discuss anything or to accept consensus about anything, so I'll just bide my time until you're blocked. I'm patient. Kafziel Talk 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Count
Hey. Its Corinthians12. How do you get the edit counter on your userpage?
 * I've added the code to your user page. To add other userboxes, see WP:UBX. In particular, since you like soccer, you may find userboxes here that you'd like to add. Just copy the template including the and paste them inside the table on your user page.
 * If you'd like help, let me know which ones you want and I'll be happy to get you started. Kafziel Talk 14:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of Hercule (Dragon Ball) to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball)
Okay – Some users decided to request a move from Hercule (Dragon Ball) to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball) – See: Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) WhisperToMe 20:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's happening again at Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) WhisperToMe 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Are you interested in having another go at adminship? Let me know on or off wiki. - crz crztalk 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be honored, if you think I'll fare better this time around. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
 * Thanks for that – it's nice to meet you! I'm not sure where our paths crossed, but I'm glad they did! I'll pass the smile on. Kafziel Talk 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD tag
Can you explain your removal of the deletion tag from Template:Campaignbox State terrorism in Sri Lanka, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Campaignbox_State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka&diff=87981136&oldid=87974148 here]? I don't see discussion on that page or at the Templates for Deletion page supporting the removal of the tag. I don't have an opinion on the issue itself (I have not voted in the discussion or edited the template) but I'm curious to know the reason for the removal. Generally speaking, deletion tags should only be removed after the discussion is closed. Kafziel Talk 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Kafziel, I had mistakenly misread the tag thinking it was speedy delete tag and I removed it almost like a reflex, believing it doesn't rightfully apply in this case In retrospect I committed a number of faults particularly not commenting etc and was quite ignorant of this procedure.  Having understood it a little further I would like to apologize for the mistakes made.  Elalan 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. I figured it was just a misunderstanding, and I'm glad I could help clear it up. Happy editing! Kafziel Talk 03:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe links
I assume you have been following this. Although each site should stand/fall on it's contents not who owns it or proposes it, I think I should mention the owner of absinthebuyersguide has bad blood with the owners of the other sites that were being blanked (I don't know the details). All the IPs that are arguing the same position seem to come from comcast and a couple seem to point to the same basic location as the owner of absinthebuyersguide. -- Ari 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Time!
 Crzrussian would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Crzrussian to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. - crz crztalk 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When you answer the questions, please sign the accept line and transclude the RfA at the top of the main RfA page. Good luck! - crz crztalk 13:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take my time with the questions so I will probably post it late tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again for the opportunity! Kafziel Talk 20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pocket knife UK Law
I've reverted your edit to this page because there are sources relating to good reason. I've added one such source (the British Knife Collectors Guild) and will be trying to find the legislation as well. If you still want to remove it, please let me know by responding here and we can yell at other for a bit :-) --User24 17:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, looks fine to me now that it has a source to support it. Thanks for the note. Kafziel Talk 19:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no probs; I didn't want to just revert it without letting you know, because you did have a valid reason to remove what you did given it's unsourced nature. :-) --User24 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

you welcomed me
...about 2 and 1/2 months ago, and I failed to thank you. Until now. gratia tu. fas est video a socius miles. -- Samantha 03:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise! Have you considered joining the military history project? With your experience, it's more than likely that you have some good stuff to add in that department. Kafziel Talk 15:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please email me
ASAP - crz crztalk 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice anti-vandalism work
Dear Kafziel,

You pounced on an IP vandal whom I was in the process of reporting / reverting, rapidly reverting his most recent vandalisms, including one to my user page. Your summary when repairing my user page said "hope you don't mind". I wanted to let you know that indeed I do not mind, and would like to thank you for your prompt and effective action.

Keep up the fine work, and best wishes for your RfA. Direvus 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help! I just now noticed that his last act before being blocked was vandalizing my page in retaliation for fixing yours. He didn't put quite as much effort into mine as he did on yours, but it's the thought that counts. :) Kafziel Talk 13:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a few real one's
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner&diff=89195035&oldid=89194455] is from todays featured article of the day. Also this one [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner&diff=89219764&oldid=89219749] and another [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner&diff=89228795&oldid=89228791].

Certainly not vital contributions, but good faith contributions, with no vandalism, non the less. Not trying to beat a beat horse hehe, but I thought you would like to see these. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ow! Ow! Oooh! Ouch! Neighhhh! Ow! Wtf!!? NEIGH!!! - crz crztalk 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I did not understand that, but I laughed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Ohh, I get it, beating a dead horse... I think they only neigh when alive, but I don't know too much about horses. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that there are well-intentioned contribs from anonymous users; I just don't think they outweigh the vandalism that their fellow anons bring to the party. Also, that first example is an edit clearly made in good faith but misguided all the same; the sentence was grammatically correct before he/she added the "had", and terribly incorrect afterwards ("had spoke").
 * Actually, the most persuasive argument I've ever heard against semi-protection of the Featured Article of the Day is that it helps focus the vandalism on one article instead of having it spread around among the other articles linked to from the main page. In other words, it's not that we expect quality contributions, but that it serves as a magnet for all the crazies and it's easier to keep an eye on one article than 100. In fact, it's okay to protect any of the other articles linked to except the FA; 99 mediocre articles protected for the sake of one excellent one being left open to vandalism? Sounds kind of backwards to me. In that way, my view is less cynical than most; I believe that most users are good, and that most of the simple vandals won't bother seeking out new ways to damage articles if they're stopped at the first one they try. Might be unrealistically optimistic, but hey – I'm nothing if not a big ray of sunshine. :) Kafziel Talk 15:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why did you remove the sockpuppeteer tag on User:Zarbon's user page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zarbon&diff=52152244&oldid=50989365/ here]? Did you know that he is still suspected of using anon IP addresses as socks to do his OWN dirty work for him in order to evade his block/ban? I haven't checked and I'm just curious, did you remove the sockpuppet category links too? Please answer back to me or below this message as soon as you can. Thanks. By the way, Tom Harrison blocked him for one month on 22 October 2006, just to let you know... Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a long time ago. I did notice that he's been in a bit of trouble again lately, but back when I removed the tag (I was the one who originally placed it) I did so because it seemed that his behavior was improving and if a suspected sock hasn't been confirmed by checkuser it's okay to remove the tag after a while. He was extremely upset about having the tag on his userpage, so after he went a while without edit warring I agreed to remove the tag while leaving the category in place. If he has since been confirmed by checkuser as using abusive sockpuppets, it's certainly okay to replace it with a tag. Kafziel Talk 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. Can you first CheckUser him (please?!!!!) I really don't have the time to do it and I really don't want to waste my time trying to learn it. It seems that it requires codes and stuff, things that I never may learn correctly. By the way, the use of him using IP Addresses and other socks is quite obvious, since they all edit the exact same articles in a different pattern. Can you at least place him back in the Wikipedia sock category and have his suspected socks categories at the bottom of his userpage? Do the best you can, man. I'm counting on you. If you want, I'll vote for you to be Administrator. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he's been blocked for a month; maybe when he comes back tomorrow things will be better. CheckUser has very specific requirements; I don't edit Dragon Ball articles so I don't know of any sockpuppets he's been using lately. If you want to file a report you're free to do so, but I recommend waiting a while to see how things go after his block expires. If you send me a couple of examples of sock puppetry stuff, I'll take a look at them and see what I can do. Kafziel Talk 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:WesStudi.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WesStudi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok  ☠  20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wiki-Philosophy #5
Hi,

I've arrived at your userpage by way of your RfA, and have a tiny observation. Although it isn't clear, it appears that you are only arguing for the featured article of the day to be semi-protected; this takes care of newbies, without prohibiting established non-admins (like yourself, at least for the moment) from making improvements. You might want to refine that. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it you're referring to the title itself? Sure, I can change that if you think it's unclear. Kafziel Talk 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX – November 2006
The November 2006 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 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Wow, your RfA finished at 14:12 GMT and no one has appeared to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools yet or to wish you well? I'd say that 81% support is the majority! I'm sure that a Bureaucrat will be along in the not-too-distant future to upgrade the tabs at the top of the page. If you have any questions about using the tools then don't feel afraid to ask, as I would love to find the answers out myself! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like it's not as clear-cut as that just yet. It still remains to be seen whether it will pass or fail, but thanks for your support and encouragement in any event. No matter what the outcome is, this RfA was certainly a much better experience than my first one. Kafziel Talk 13:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you got the tools, but it's very, very close. Yank sox  17:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with the finish time on your RfA. When I said 'well done' above it was mere hours away from successful completion. Now it seems to have failed. I'm sorry about that. Perhaps you will succeed in the New Year? Regards, (aeropagitica) 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the sorry. This was an irregular close. Please do apply again in a few months, and note that you would have been confirmed with 81% support had the RfA closed on a standard schedule. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix, Arizona
Did I do something wrong? The edit I just did was removed???

Thanks, Manny (User:Daltnpapi4u)
 * You'll need to cite a source for the population change you made. It can be as simple as a link to a reliable source on the Internet, like the appropriate page at the Census Bureau, but it's important to make sure all of our information is verifiable and accurate. If you need help formatting, just let me know the source and I'll be happy to put it in for you. Kafziel Talk 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship nomination
Your nomination for adminship was not successful on this occasion, as no consensus was reached. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and consider standing for adminship again in future. Remember, a majority of users were in favour of your nomination, and in particular, many mentioned that they now had more confidence in you than on your previous nomination. Keep up the good work, Warofdreams talk 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad about that, it was very close indeed. Try again in a couple of months, I am sure you will get through. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll see how things go. For now, I'm looking forward to getting back to business! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted my thoughts on my userpage and on WT:RFA. My condolences about the way you were treated. But you should keep your head up about it, with an eye towards your third RfA... - crz crztalk 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry that the nomination failed. For what is worth, you can count on my support vote when you run for adminship next time. --RedZebra 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not know much about you before the RfA. I'm now very impressed -- count on me as a strong supporter in the future. Semper squid, --A. B. 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Can I invite you to get involved with WikiProject Spam? From looking at your interactions with Cirm, I think you'd be a real boost to our little informal group's efforts.
 * Sure thing! That's a WikiProject I can definitely get behind! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, I hope your RfA SNAFU didn't put you off – you have my strong support in the future, and I would be happy to co-nominate when you try again. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and all that. -- Ars Scriptor 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It actually turned out pretty much as I predicted when crz first suggested it, so I'm not too bummed out. I appreciate the offer! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please drop me a line if you try again. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the irregualarity in your RfA much better than some admins are, keep up the good attititude. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand both sides (I agree with crz that most RfAs will degenerate into "no consensus" if given enough time) but I really believe in the importance of consensus and compelling input over voting and percentages, so I was more than willing to wait the extra time. An interesting experiment, at any rate. Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess, and you seem to be taking it well (better than most would), so congratulations on that. You have my support in a future RfA. riana_dzasta 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am certain your next RfA will pass overwhelmingly. You are an excellent, knowledgeable editor who feels an admirable passion for Wikipedia. I think your passion may sometimes lead you into stressful situations in dealing with the less skilled and the less knowledgeable. If you continue to display patience and urbanity, I will be happy to support. I look forward to your next RfA.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I'll do my best to keep a level head as time goes on. Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir, given the strength of support which you have received above, and the "irregularity" of the opposition to your adminship, it seems to me that I may have been at least a bit hasty in expressing any opposition to your candidacy, and that I may have been swayed by less than well informed opinion myself. If that is the case, you have my profoundest apologies. As I stated there, I have better cause than most to have reservations about combativeness, and I am beginning to recognize that I may have been perhaps less studious than I should have been before voicing my opposition. I realize that this may be very small consolation to you, however. Should you ever choose to run again, and based on the response above I hope that you at least consider it, I shall try to make a greater effort on my own part to be a bit less hasty to judgement, and will with luck keep silent when I am less than certain of my own opinions. Thank you for having both the courage to seek adminship twice, and for having been an active contributor for all that time. I hope that my own possibly rash actions, and those of possibly others as well, do not prevent you from continuing to be the fine editor that you very clearly are. Badbilltucker 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, you have nothing to apologize for. I know that one objection often starts an avalanche, and your comments were more insightful than a simple "object". I appreciate the note, though, and I assure you the results of the RfA won't affect my participation at all. I'm here to stay! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What everyone else has said rings true: Your grace in accepting the outcome may have cemented your success next time (and I do hope there's a next time). Keep up the positive outlook and I am sure you'll have my support (if not my nomination). Remember that several people switched from oppose to neutral/support just in these seven days, and that you were very close to the 'rough consensus' limit in any case. Let me know if there's anything I can help with, and I'll keep my eye out for Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3. -- nae'blis 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maybe that link will turn blue sometime next year. I don't think I'll get unanimous support like some people around here, but I'll do my best. :) Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I voted oppose per incivility concerns, but I know if you just polish up a bit, you can guarantee that you'll get my support in your next RfA! Best of luck, =)  Nish kid 64  01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: My RfA
Don't get too bummed out man. Your RfA was extremely close (almost 80%, which would have been enough), and I'm sure the third time will be the charm. =) —Lantoka ( talk 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha, that's what I told Crazy Russian a few days ago! Thanks! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=HighInBC an eye on me](if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA

 * I like users like you. You remind me of User:RickK. It almost worries me that if Rick ran for admin now, he probably wouldn't make it. In any case, I'm terribly amused by your message, and I will certainly lend my support if you run again. Good luck, and happy editing. &spades;P M C&spades; 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it, and I'm flattered to be mentioned in the same sentence as RickK. Thanks again for the support, and I'll see you in Round Three! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
With a few more months to put this behind you, you'll make it to adminship in no time. Just try & stay civil, because other than that, there was nothing keeping you from making it. Your article edits are all great & you no doubt have contributed to Wikipedia a lot. So I apologise for opposing, but I certainly will support you in the future if you keep up a good demeanor & continue your great edits... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You know you are on the right track when many of the people who opposed you are encouraging you to run again later. Including me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to you...
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I didn't realize that your RfA was closed in this manner. It might be advantageous that events unfolded this way – I've noticed that Wikipedians confirmed as administrators with a wider, unambiguous margin of support tend to have it easier in the long term when carrying out administrative tasks. When you feel ready to apply again, be sure to let me know. I'm convinced you will be able to make good use of the additional autonomy that comes with having the sysop bit. Give it a bit of time – it looks to me that more people from the community are realising the genuine value of putting confidence in you. Stay measured as you have consistently done, and I'm sure the more positive side of your contributions will shine through tremendously.

By the way, if nobody has told you yet, I'm sure you know: you're definitely one of the good guys around :-) – Cheers, --HappyCamper 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfAs...
Thanks for your congratulations, and I was truly sorry to see the outcome of your RfA. I spent quite a bit of time going over your questions and contributions and the concerns of the editors who voted oppose -- and I am sure you'd be just what we need as an administrator. I'm also sure you'll do fine whenever you decide to go again (or someone else decides for you), and you'll definitely have my support! You handled the matter with a great attitude, by the way. Good luck in the future! -- Renesis (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility
I didn't discover your RfA until too late, but I sympathize with your difficulties regarding "civility". The code of conduct on Wikipedia is seriously warped if an otherwise perfect contributor can be denied adminship because of failure to conform with a phony, condescending, legalistic writing style. This little fantasy world is succeeding in spite of itself, on the backs of people like you. Better luck next time. Haber 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

cubicle farm
Hi, Kafziel. It seems your "cubicle farm" image is gone. I'll be back in the office monday, and we have copious cubicle farms (I call them "seas"). Would you like me to take a picture and upload it? ... aa:talk 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My goodness. I just read your "rules." I've never quite put it that bluntly, but of course you're 100% correct. ... aa:talk 09:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder what happened to the picture? Surely it wasn't a fair use image... with all the photographers on Wikipedia, I'm sure you and I aren't the only ones with cubicles. Weird. Well, I would take one myself but I work from home and I don't know when I'll be in the office again. So if you want to, that's cool. Don't trouble yourself, though – it doesn't look like any other pages used that image and I can always link to a more basic one.
 * Glad you liked the rules. Maybe someday things will change enough here to make it possible to get rid of some of them. Kafziel Talk 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

hi Kafziel
hey! thank you for kind message and for the info...hoping to hear you again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slashnomur (talk • contribs).
 * You're welcome! Feel free to let me know if you ever need any help. Kafziel Talk 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, please can you consider translating the Noahide Laws article into arabic at some point in the future, its been a serious project in the wikiproject:judaims for a while and generates allot of good traffic. I hope to clean it up soon. Thanks. Chavatshimshon 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yowza. That is one big article. I might be able to get at least a stub started on the Arabic Wikipedia, but I don't know enough about the subject to be very comprehensive. I'll see what I can do. Kafziel Talk 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could help with clarifying anything (even tho I am not sure why Chavatshimshon is asking for this...) - crz crztalk 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jackal
I think the movie shall be at J (film) and the The J shall point to the movie with a standard caveat on the movie article: The Jackal redirects here. For other uses, see J (d). - crz crztalk 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll go ahead and make the changes then. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thierry Henry
Hey Kafziel i am the Thierry Henry guy, yep people make mistakes i failed to notice that DOB. HOWEVER i wasn't so pigheaded as to revert back to obvious vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.13.45 (talk • contribs)
 * Most people who revert vandalism aren't familiar with the subject. They review the recent changes page to see what has been done in the last few seconds and then do their best to set it straight. Lots of people have more than one middle name, so it might not be obvious to someone not familiar with Thierry Henry. But if we waited for experts to fix each article, Wikipedia would be overrun with vandalism.
 * Trying to fix vandalism is a pretty thankless job. Keep in mind that he's not being paid for it; he's volunteering his own free time to try to maintain the articles. Everyone is entitled to an honest mistake now and then. We're all on the same team. Kafziel Talk 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Heroes
I already put a proposed deletion on the article, but it wouldn't take effect for five days and it can be disputed. If you're considering merging, you may want to add a merge tag and say what you plan to do on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't do prod. But I did add a merge tag and started a discussion on the original list, so please weigh in there. If the merge doesn't happen, I'll nominate it for AfD. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack intervention
I have left a note on User talk:67.110.68.99 – and if the name calling continues I will block him. Additionally, I would advise just to leave comments like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heroes_%28TV_series%29&diff=next&oldid=92486205 this one] there – even with his "I told you so" attitude – you were right and the other editors will know that – they know our standards for building an excellent encyclopedia. I guess I mean – don't let stuff like that bother you. As you said, the addition of information needs to be referenced, I suggest referencing the tv show's website, notable summary sites, etc. -- Trödel 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The civility warning I gave him wasn't for the "I told you so" post on the Heroes talk page (which, unless he was sockpuppetting, wasn't even originally written by that user). The incivility was on his own talk page and his abusive edit summaries in other places. His edit history is ridiculously abusive. By comparison, I actually didn't think the "told you so" thing was especially bad. Anyway, he's blocked now. Kafziel Talk 20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS – [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.110.68.99&curid=7638306&diff=92529187&oldid=92525704 This] ought to help his case. :) Kafziel Talk 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah – insulting while asking to be unblocked is not very wise. Anyway – I denied the unblock request. -- Trödel 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Again
RE the translation of Noahide Laws, can I make the task easier by writing up a summary/stub in english since to make the task of reading up on its details easier for you? Ta. FrummerThanThou 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Your note warmed my heart. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From your page, it looks as if you've made many positive contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work in that regard.  My reply to your comment is on the above's talk page.  Thanks. Tvccs 03:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hiker.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Hiker.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kafziel&curid=2151882&diff=92964577&oldid=92964393 Good work], I know it's hard. riana_dzasta 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, thanks! It's been a couple of weeks, and it hasn't been too bad. The only thing I miss is a smoke with my coffee. There's something truly sublime about a cup of coffee and a cigarette. But life goes on. Kafziel Talk 06:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Spirit of the American Doughboy.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Spirit of the American Doughboy.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya bint Huyayy
As an Arabic linguist, your input on this article would be appreciated. There is currently a discussion going on with a few admins involved. The point of contention is whether she should be described as a concubine of Mohammad or not. Someone there wishes to propose that she she should be called a ma malakat aymanukum, which in my opinion is not right since there is no source of her being called that, and he story depicted in the very article says quite clearly she was a [concubine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrummerThanThou (talk • contribs)
 * That's a pretty contentious issue; the exact definiton of the term is debated not just on Wikipedia but by other scholars as well. "Concubine" does bring with it some connotations of bias; translating ma malakat aymanukum as concubine is seen by some as a holdover from the cultural misunderstandings of the colonial era. It's hard to say who's right. Generally I'm against politically correct reinterpretations, but in this case it may be more a case of a communication gap that was filled with a less-than-adequate word. I don't think I'd have anything constructive to add there; I'm not an expert in etymology. Kafziel Talk 15:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Veteran politicians
In reply to your CfD statement that "most" veteran politicians would be duplicated by "American politicians", I have provided evidence that only 25-31% of either house of Congress is made up of veterans. Crockspot 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied while you were writing this. Kafziel Talk 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Empire
Hi, thanks for your vigilance, and in answer to your comments, yes – had an off-day today but have done countless reverts of vandalism on it. Thanks for your help!! MarkThomas 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I regretted that edit summary as soon as I posted it; if you look at my contribs you'll see it's been a very long day. I'm pretty beat, and I just needed to vent. Dumb place to do it. I really should have signed off a long time ago, but vandalism has just been completely out of hand today so I've been stuck here. Anyway, thanks for the note and I hope you weren't offended by it. Kafziel Talk 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, was glad to have your help. Know that feeling myself. Time for bed? :-) MarkThomas 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Miller Time! :)
 * I'm going to take a break for the evening. Thanks for understanding. Kafziel Talk 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Interference.com Deletion
A little late to the game here, since I was "inactive" myself for a while, but, really, it's no big deal that the article was deleted. I only got involved, because the original article had become little more than an unencyclopedic flame war between the site owner and some anonymous, disgruntled members of the site. In hindsight, I probably should have requested its deletion from the onset.

BTW, I just happened to notice this, but Cassiel (Hebrew: "Kafziel") is one of the two angels in the Wim Wenders film, Wings of Desire--"Damiel" being the other. Cheers! Damiel 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Meetup NYC
Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was good to meet you. Looking forward to the next one! Kafziel Talk 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good meeting you, too. The bill was settled to my satisfaction; no worries! --Uncle Ed 03:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for correcting my grammer error on my user page. I appreciate it. American Brit 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
 Michaelas10 would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Michaelas10 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ (3). If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I'll understand if you would not like to get nominated right now, just tell me when.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the offer, but my last RfA is a bit too recent. I'm going to give it at least a couple more months. I'll be sure to let you know. Kafziel Talk 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Zarbon
user:zarbon has finally got it! - Dasnedius 17:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, blocked indefinitely. Can't say I'm surprised, though of course it would have been better if he could have gotten on board with the way things run here. He did have some good input now and then, but it certainly seems the bad outweighed the good.
 * Well, let the sockpuppetry commence (or, in this case, continue). Kafziel Talk 22:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York
Come see: Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New user
Hi ! You're not boring, it's great !

Regards, Tomislav Krpina
 * Glad you like it. Hope it helps, and if you ever need anything feel free to ask. Kafziel Talk 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Is classmate "too close" that it might result in conflict of interest? Tonytypoon 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on the classmate. In your case, obviously so. Anyone who was truly neutral about the subject wouldn't be removing AfD tags and arguing so much on its deletion page. Your actions have proven that you have a conflict of interest. Kafziel Talk 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please delete Image:Rcsimelvinchin.jpg Image:PM2.jpg Image:DR MM.jpg Image:P1010171.JPG .I am sorry for these 4 photos. Tonytypoon 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have marked them for speedy deletion per your request. Kafziel Talk 21:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X – December 2006
The December 2006 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 22:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New cat
Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. Consider adding yourself! :) - crz crztalk 02:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest" and cult articles
I somehow stumbled upon the AfD discussion of Chin Wee Loon, and although I have no knowledge of or interest in that particular issue, I saw that you and the person you were talking with were referring to Conflict of interest. It made me think that an awareness of "Conflict of interest" would be a good guideline on Wikipedia, but recently I've been poking around cult-related articles, and have noticed that some editors there don't seem to pay much attention to this. It might be expected that members of alleged cults would edit articles related to their own group in a way that is predictably biased, but I also noticed that anti-cultists do the same thing, though usually in articles on more general cult topics. In some cases there are anti-cultists who seem even more biased than the cult members! Of course, there is a difference between bias and conflict of interest, but I suspect that some of the anti-cultists are ex-cult members, and some of them seem to have a psychological need to get back at the cults. I realize that these are controversial topics, but some editors seem not even to try to be unbiased. You may or may not be interested in taking a look, but if you are, there's a cult template that has a good sample. I suppose most such problems get sorted out, but I have to say I'm not familiar with any specific Wikipedia guidelines or policies along the lines of what I describing (except of course NPOV), so any comment related to that would also be welcome. - Do c  t  orW  03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonytypoon
Your buddy has deleted to take an interest in AFDs, IFDs, RFDs, STDs (okay, maybe not the last one :) ) as of late and I've got mixed feelings about it.  In particular, there's this RFD for BushTalk which redirects to Talk:Bush (a seemingly-wacky redirect from the early days of Wikipedia).  Tonytypoon !voted to delete as WP:NOT.  I asked for further clarification and since have gotten two responses about how Talk:Bush "looks like a forum."

I'm feeling uneasy about his participations in "for deletion" discussions based on our experiences with him at the Chin Wee Loon AFD and based on the inability to grasp some of Wikipedia's standards, principles, and guidelines. Would you mind taking a look to see if you reach the same conclusions? Thanks, Metros232 05:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The links you removed
Sorry, they were there for reference. Zazaban 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of moving them to your sandbox. Kafziel Talk 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm apologizing, not complaining. Zazaban 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I just figured I'd let you know where you could find them without having to go into the page history of the category. Keeping them in your sandbox will preserve them in the event that the category (and its history) is deleted. Kafziel Talk 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your message. I am well aware of the sandbox. Yesterday I mispronounced 'oreo' as 'opeo'. I just added that to make my brother laugh. Are you enjoying your warmish winter? Benhealy 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. I'm starting to feel like a fool for spending all summer chopping firewood. :) Kafziel Talk 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guest stars
The thing is that, while major characters both define and are defined by the show, guest stars are not. Many shows have dozens or even hundreds of guest stars, and many such stars guest on many different shows. That's not really a defining characteristic. If I look at a category for Buffy actors, I expect to see the major characters, not that guy who played a monster in episode sixteen and died within the hour. HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, which is what I meant by not being sure that the Law & Order category's inclusiveness is a good thing. In reality, it probably renders the entire category useless. But, at present, Category:Law & Order actors does include that crazy amount of guest stars, so I'm inclined to follow precedent. It's a crummy precedent, which is why my "keep" is weak, but it's a fairly gigantic precedent nonetheless.
 * Still, maybe if we change the ones you proposed, we can change the Law & Order one next. Maybe that would be a good thing. I'll consider changing my stance. Kafziel Talk 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want some more precedent, look at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 28 under "family guy actors", and at Template:Actors by series.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me, I'll change my position. Let's kill that damn Law & Order category! Kafziel Talk 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Immigrants categories
I have the sense that we are both not making sense to each other on these "Categories:Immigrants to America" and "Categories:Immigrants to the United States" categories. I am willing to keep a category substructure that describes immigrants to North America but not the United States (in the sense that the United States did not exist or the region that the people travelled to was outside the USA's formal boundaries). However, the word "America" is clearly not understood by some Wikipedians (who are using it as a synonym for the United States) and needs to be changed. Can you suggest a compromise?

(At the very least, can be change Category:Canadian immigrants to America? In virtually any context, the use of "America" is inane in this category.)  Dr. Submillimeter 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Canadian change. I also agree that the most populous categories will probably be "X immigrants to the United States", since the largest immigration explosions came in the 19th and 20th centuries. I'm not opposed to having U.S. categories, I'm just opposed to having them instead of an American category. Since U.S. is a sub-unit of America, the U.S. categories should be in a subcategory of the America category. On that same note, I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it "Immigrants to North America", if you think that will clear things up.
 * This is a sore subject for me because a) my English ancestors on my father's side were loyalists in the Revolutionary War; they were not immigrants to the United States, but to America, b) my Irish ancestors immigrated to (and fought for) the CSA; only after the Civil War did they become U.S. citizens, and not by choice. This is a particularly sore subject for me lately, since a tremendous amount of pre-colonial categories have been renamed "13 colonies" or "United States" this and that. (For instance, the Esopus Wars are now categorized as "Military history of the Thirteen Colonies" when in fact they were over by 1663, 100 years before the Thirteen Colonies were even formed.) History is blurry enough for Americans; we shouldn't be making it worse. I'm sure you know how sensitive the English are about the differences between England, the United Kingdom, Great Britain, etc. We should be the same way here. If we can leave the parent category as America (or, at most, change it to North America), I'll support the rest. Kafziel Talk 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We may be drawing to a consensus here. I just suggested using "North America" in place of "America" at WP:CFD.  KTBotany suggested "the Americas" before my suggestion, but I prefer to narrow it down to one continent.  (None of my ancestors came from Great Britain or Ireland, and all of them arrived in the United States after the Civil War, so I get to avoid many of these problems.)  Dr. Submillimeter 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nomination of the category mergers/renames. It simply became too messy. I plan on nominating Category:Immigrants to America as Category:Immigrants to North America once the administration close out the nomination and remove the old CFM/CFR templates. I hope you will vote for the new nomination.

I also shuffled the category structure of Category:Immigrants to America and Category:Immigrants to the United States as well as some of the people in the subcategories. I think some of the "immigrant to America" subcategories did contain solely immigrants to the United States, although a few subcategories do contain people who immigrated to North America but not an area formally designated as part of the United States at the time that the people immigrated. Anyhow, if you see problems with the way I am shuffling articles or subcategories, please let me know. Dr. Submillimeter 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Kafziel,

I noticed you were behind the recent FA for Invasion. I too am working on getting Ohio Wesleyan University to FA status and I think I am pretty much there. I was wondering if you could take a look and make suggestions/edits if you have the time? I did like your Wikipedia Philosophy section on your userpage. Thank you for your time! WikiprojectOWU 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks very good at first glance. I'll be happy to take a more in-depth look at it within the next day or two, and I'll leave comments on the peer review page. Kafziel Talk 18:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kafziel, are you still interested in helping me with edits for the Ohio Wesleyan article? I'd greatly appreciate it! LaSaltarella 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks great to me. I'd say the only bumps you might face will be people who don't like the high number of citations, but I don't think that's really an actionable objection. I don't see how citing sources thoroughly can really be construed as a bad thing. There's certainly no basis for it in Wikipedia policy. I'll certainly support the nomination when the article goes to FAC. Kafziel Talk 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal
Thanks for the "heads up". -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Have fun! ;) Kafziel Talk 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for typo correction. I followed the instructions for submitting the request, or so I thought – how is it "malformed"? --Insider201283 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, you never gave examples of what you're asking for mediation about. You mentioned pov pushing, but provided no diffs. How is one to know what the problem is, or when it happened, or where?
 * Second, you're pretty vague about what result you're hoping to achieve. "stopped, obviously" and a smiley face don't give a mediator much to go on. Fixing the first point will probably help with the second. In other words, providing specific examples will help clarify what exactly it is you want Will to do differently.
 * Hope that helps. By the way, you should put all that on the mediation request, not here; I know Will from around the "neighborhood" so I won't be involved in your mediation. Kafziel Talk 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd swear when I read the instructions filling out that form it said something along the lines of "be brief, the mediator will ask for info later". Damned if I can find it now though ... c'est la vie. Thanks. --Insider201283 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
I saw that we finally got Invasion onto the main page. I submitted a request for it to be put on the main page a while back, but I never thought they would put it on after about the 4th month. You really helped that article move along so...congrats. RENTASTRAWBERRY  FOR LET?   röck  00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no! Main Page vandalism! I can't bear to watch!
 * We should start a pool on how many times in the next 24 hrs vandals will use the article to criticize the US and UK in Iraq. I'll take the "500" spot. :) Kafziel Talk 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, 4 months! I don't think I ever had to wait more than 2 weeks for mine... Anyway, congrats as per above. I wasn't going to thank you as I forgot you were the other guy who helped get Invasion up there, but then I remembered your name, so decided to thank you after all. Sorry... So yes, er um, congrats. Hope you've had a great new year. :) Spawn Man 02:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

indoholic
when i expressed my opinion in the afd, i clarified that i have supported to keep just indophobic, not indoholic. see here. Thanks. nids(♂) 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but your "keep" is read by bots (and by those who just skim the "votes" and post accordingly). Kafziel Talk 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD
Looks fine to me, keep up the good work!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Panchayats
I have replied to your query on WT:INWNB. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

kosovo
Hi, Kafziel. I poked my head out from my book to be distracted by something, and happened upon Wikipedia. Therein I found your user talk page on my watchlist, and figured I'd drop by to say hello. To refresh my memory, I re-read your user page (it's grown! and there is a cabal!). I'm curious about your assertion that nobody speaks arabic in Kosovo. I read, a few years ago, a book by a Dore Gold, ISBN 0-89526-135-9 (itunes). He stated in essence that the Sauds were sponsoring Wahhabism throughout Europe and Subasia. Cited instances include Gibraltar, the conflict in the Balkans, and even the islamic Chechen factions. I hadn't read the article on him when I read the book, so I guess I didn't get (other than his pretty acerbic rhetoric) that it is more likely than not propaganda. However, it does seem reasonable that there would be arab-speaking (arabophone?) persons in the region. What am I missing? Ah, one last thing. I think you'll appreciate this edit, in the scope of vandalism that is, in fact, funny. Not surprising, there were some bewadded knickers from the edit. Cheers. ... aa:talk 11:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha... that one took some serious effort and planning!
 * When I was in Kosovo there actually were some Arabs there, ostensibly as aid workers for the muslim victims. Some of our higher ups wanted us to make sure that's all they were doing, although their focus was more on preventing terrorist attacks on our forces or on the Serbs that were left in the region. Nothing ever came of it, though, and most of the time it just seemed like busy work. I suppose there must be lots of people there who speak Arabic, at least in the way old school Catholics speak Latin or Jewish kids learn Hebrew. Islam is very traditional and protective when it comes to the Arabic language and translating the Qur'an or the salat. But we were largely SigInt, so unless they were broadcasting their intentions, we probably wouldn't find anything. And we never did. Most of the time it was up to our Serbo-Croation linguists (and two poor Albanian linguists we conscripted last-minute from the Navy crew of the Kearsarge); the Arabic linguists (there were two of us) mostly spent our time at roadblocks, checkpoints, patrolling Gnjilane, and facing off with the Russians at the border. Not much Arabic to be heard. In some ways that was good—no news is good news, as they say—but it was somewhat anticlimactic after all the time I'd spent training. Kafziel Talk 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I spend a lot of time at a local coffee shop writing. I looked around last time I was there, while taking a walk to get my head clear. There are a whole lot of college students there, and at least 20% of them were actually studying arabic. I was shocked. I live in DC, so there's probably a little bit higher than average motivation for it, but that's still a huge number. Regarding your time over there, yeah, it's too bad (with the caveat you mention). I suppose you wound up leaving right before you would have gotten a lot more use out of it. Interesting world. ... aa:talk 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my contract ended in November 2001. I was tempted to join back up after spending some time working at the Trade Center site, but my fiancee at the time (now my ex-wife; that'll teach me...) convinced me not to go. Can't say I miss most of it, and I was never really a fan of the language, but it had its moments. A lot of my old friends still work for NSA, and one owns his own translation company, but I was pretty content to have a (somewhat) normal life again. Kafziel Talk 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actors categories
So I'm wondering what your response is to the discussion for the Law & Order categories you posted on CfD. I'm trying to drum up support for deleting all these "artist categorized by their performances or productions" categories before undertaking a mass nomination. Do you still think that it is an impossible task? I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks, -- Samuel Wantman 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's impossible task; I think it's an unnecessary one. What purpose is served by deleting those categories? I'm not sure why you had those broadway categories deleted, but that certainly doesn't mean we need to follow suit with every other entertainment category. There's simply no need. If you need to "drum up" support for a nomination, then it's not a good nomination to make in the first place. XfD results should be a reflection of general consensus, not a reflection of campaigning and vote stacking. Considering the input on CfD thus far, a mass nomination would be verging on disruption.
 * Renaming the categories as "cast" lets us narrow them down to the main actors. That's perfectly sufficient. The contents of an article are not harmed in any way by listing the page in a few extra categories. And as long as the categories are as exclusive as possible, they will continue to be useful. Kafziel Talk 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We disagree on this. If you've read the discussion, you know my reasons.  I am not attempting to "vote stack", I am trying to discuss an issue I care about with people who have many different opinions.  If I were trying to "vote stack" I'd be talking with people who agree with me, not those that don't. Adding "cast" categories to main actors in TV shows is not perfectly sufficient.  It is flawed.  It leads to the mistaken appearance that being part of a TV show cast is more important that dozens of notable films that the same actor may have been in.  Adding dozens of films for each actor is not only not needed, but detrimental.  So I don't see a way out of this that makes sense short of removing all of these categories.  As there are lists that handle all this information in a better form, I see removing them as win-win.  The categories may be useful, but the lists are just as useful without cluttering up the articles.  There is no consensus on this issue.  There has been consensus to remove them from films and theatre, but no consensus with TV and film series.  Trying to get this issue resolved is not at all disruption.  I'm very sorry that you see it that way. -- Samuel Wantman 08:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By disruptive I mean that since these categories were just discussed, it's disruptive to turn around and relist them just because you didn't like the outcome. I'm not suggesting you're actively vote stacking, although [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=101066140&oldid=100926327 this note] highlights your desire to game the system by hoping the community will be unsuspecting of a second nomination on the heels of the first. Certainly conduct unbecoming an administrator.
 * The renaming will reduce a tremendous amount of clutter if you give it a chance to work. Categories are neat. Lists are messy and easily vandalized or filled with cruft. If you disagree, that's fine, but consensus has been established for now and you shouldn't be seeking to immediately overturn that. If the changes we've made don't get things to improve after a few months, I might support deletion. But not now. Kafziel Talk 13:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Olompali State Historic Park
I just took a look at your WP:IPNA comment edits on this talkpage Talk:Olompali State Historic Park. I did a wikification of the article to bring it to a WP:CAL Start article status. If you look now at the talkpage, most of your suggestions are answered. I did not include them in the article as the wikification was a major edit because of all the sources, references, external links and slight corrections to the article. I plan on introducing one or two more things (from the sources on the talkpage) to the article. Of particular interest to the WP:IPNA is the fact from the National Register of Historic Places website PDF that this NR contains a petroglyph. (BTW, that article on petroglyph does not have your project listed on it).

If you could please read the full talkpage and place specific comments or suggestions, I'd appreciate it. I am not going to touch the talkpage for a day or two. Cheers, Ronbo76 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you did some great work on the page and we cross-posted. I will take your suggestions to heart. Ronbo76 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like good work all around! Glad I could help! I've reclassed it as "start" since it is certainly not a stub anymore. I hope others will show up to give you a hand with the content (my expertise is more colonial-era New England area Indian stuff). Good luck! Kafziel Talk 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I really like what you did with page! I may have to do a day trip there as I like the info I am learning about this settlement. According to the state website, Sir Francis Drake may have traded with the Miwoks as a coin was found and is in the UC Berkeley collection. Ronbo76 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability (films)
If you want to reactivate the proposode guidelines on film notability, I suggest you add it back into the list of proposed guidelines at Template:IncGuide. You may also want to ask for opinions at the Village pump, Wikiproject films, or Wikipedia Talk:Notability. Eluchil404 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already being discussed at the village pump. That's why I replaced "historical" with "proposed". Kafziel Talk 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Geolink tag, Wikimapia and California State Indian Museum question
Hi! I learned something from you about the geolink tag and am using it in some of WP:CAL articles that were in stub statuses. I have a question about the Wikimapia. Is a screenshot of a Wikimapia map and/or satellite image considered releaseable to the Wiki projects under the GNU Free Documentation License? If so, this would really help our project in terms of being able to put quality maps of noted interchanges, desert locales, etc. I will post this on the California State Indian Museum talkpage. If you could answer me there, I'd appreciate it!!! Cheers, Ronbo76 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick answer. One of the users in the WP:CAL says that much of the U.S. Government's original satelite imagery is in the public domain, so it can be used on Wikipedia. Now, if I could just get my mitts on those images. . . Ronbo76 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, that's definitely true. Anything created by the Federal government is Public Domain, as long as nobody else has done anything to alter it. Satellite images are usually fine, as long as they come straight from the source. Kafziel Talk 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

photo shop
If I knew how to photo shop I would do it. I hate to see these lovely photos go, but I certainly understand your exhaustion and frustration after so much work preserving someone else's photos. If there is any way I can help, please let me know. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. And I look forward to supporting you in a successful RfA sometime soon as well. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your landslide! Kafziel Talk 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
OK. I didn't make the connection. I'll fix.

I reverted File:Palliyodam aranmula.jpg to a previous image that had the watermarked cropped off soi think it is OK. -Nv8200p talk 04:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, looks good. Thanks!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI – January 2007
The January 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 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

May want to see city's History of the City
Irvine, CA's official website History of the City states, Archeological research establishes prehistoric man in the Irvine area at least 12,000 years ago, possibly even 18,000 years ago. And, ''Gabrielino Indians moved into the Irvine area 2,000 years ago, establishing dozens of villages. One village was located near the present San Joaquin marsh and another near the San Joaquin golf course.''
 * I just put that on the Talk:Tongva page. I did see any mention of it in that article or Irvine, CA's article. Ronbo76 06:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Access Genealogy: Indian Tribal records, Miwok Indian Tribe. Here's another one that in our Rohnert Park, California article. Another interesting reference on that article is that Native Americans comprise 5.58% as of the 2000 census. Ronbo76 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your November RFA
I'm not sure if I ever replied to your message in November about your recent RFA. You are no doubt aware that you got close to 75% support and the general threshold is 80%. A vote of 22/75 is going down in flames. A vote of 75/22 is a "Close but no cigar." The fact that you got so close suggests that you could make it in a subsequent RFA if you address the civility issues that were raised in that RFA. Let me know when you are ready to submit again and I will be happy to support you if the issues in question have been addressed.

--Richard 16:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why I used the Hindenburg photo; it was more of a gradual descent into ruin than a spectacular crash. If it had been 22/75, I probably would have closed it early and used this one. :)
 * I might be willing to go again in a month or two. I got a lot of support after the last one and I had an offer since then that I turned down. Kafziel Talk 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for wikifying Jaswant Singh Khalra page
I appreciate the time that you have invested in wikifying Jaswant Singh Khalra page. Thanks! A. S. AulakhTalk 08:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism related reliable references
Hi Kafziel, I recently noted that you are reading/working on Sikhism related topics and thought to leave you some of the reliable resources/references on Sikhism.
 * 1) Global Sikh Studies – This is one of the best sites I have been to. I have a lot of respect for the work that the member of Global Sikh Studies have done.
 * 2) Sikh Sundesh – Another good reference source.

If you are interested, I'll leave more resources here for you to refer. In rush right now, Good luck ! A. S. AulakhTalk 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I look forward to using it. Kafziel Talk 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edituing the flag size
i left before i would complete my edit to the falg at the List of C-130 Hercules crashes page but thanks again for resizing it.User talk:Yousaf465
 * No problem! Kafziel Talk 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct copying from external sources
Kafziel-

Thanks for welcoming me. I was hoping you'd give me your opinion on something. I've found a (relatively short) article that has a sentence that is directly copied from an external website. The original source is not referenced (there are no references for any of the info in that section, actually). Further down in the article, the external website is referenced to support a specific fact.

How to handle a relatively small ripoff like this? Ok, I'll tell you the article-- it's Petroleum jelly. Look for the word "rapt", and you'll see the sentence I mean. Flowery language to begin with, and directly taken from the source cited for the supposed "debunking". (I think those two sentences are very unsatisfactory; it is not clear exactly how Chesebrough's "claims" were "debunked".)

Thanks, Jlaramee 17:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a copyvio. You have the option of rewriting the sentence to change the wording (and fix the tone while you're at it), or you can simply delete it. Adding quotes and citing the source could be a third option in cases where having the exact wording is absolutely necessary, but that's certainly not the case here. Since it's such a small change, you can certainly be bold and make whatever changes you feel are best.
 * You're also right about the cite not really being a good source for the claims being debunked. No evidence is offered there for the debunking; we just have to take the narrator's word for it, whoever he might be. Your best bet there would be to "comment out" the link with a brief explanation (add a to the end) and then put a  tag in its place. For an example of the syntax, edit this page and you'll see a note I've commented out by hiding it in those brackets. That's a bit more complicated than rewriting the other sentence, so if you want me to do that part I'll be happy to help.  Kafziel Talk 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam warning
Kafziel-

Thank you for your message. I apologize for the inconvenience. I am new at the wikipedia and I did not realized my mistake. I apologize. Thank you for all your wonderful articles. [(User: nklansek )]
 * No harm done. Glad you understand. Kafziel Talk 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Bhai Taru Singh, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your page on the main page. Would you considering joining WP:SIKH ? Baka man 
 * Sure! I'm no expert, but I'd be happy to help however I can. Kafziel Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sikh question
Hello Kafziel. I see you mentioned in your RfA answers that you are interested in Sikh topics. Perhaps you would like to tackle Gurmeet Singh Dhinsa? See here: User:Tragic Baboon/List of federal death penalty prosecutions in New York. Let me know what you think. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting and like a magnet for controversy. Right up my alley. ;) Kafziel Talk 19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you decide to write it, let me know if I can help you with sources. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check your email – Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yowza! That's a ton of stuff! Thanks for that – I'm just getting started in my sandbox, and I've been a little preoccupied with other things, but that will definitely come in handy. Kafziel Talk 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Heh, heh. Thanks for the Army Men Barnstar. I love it! --Jcbutler 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it! You're the first recipient! Kafziel Talk 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My optional question
Thanks for answering my optional question on your RfA. However, you've neglected to tell what you've learnt from the experience. Sorry to be picky, but I'd love if you could expand your answer a little bit. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the things I learned from last time is to keep my RfA responses brief or be accused of trying to please everyone and campaigning for votes. I think what I wrote says what I learned, but if you disagree I can accept that. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Man you have changed! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who came up with that rule lol. I think trying to explain your rationale on RfAs is crucial & I'm not quite sure why everyone is so jumpy about it. In anycase, I've just read your Wikiphilosophies for the first time & agree with most of them. I definitely think you'd make a good admin this time round. :) Spawn Man 23:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lingam
Thanks for the heads up! I'd actually just encountered the 3RR concept on another talk page, too. I'm unlikely to break it anyway, as I tend to edit only two sessions a day. I'll make a point not to revert more than once in a session and I should be okay. :-) IPSOS (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff
OK, thanks for clarifying, and I've changed to neutral. To be honest, I probably wouldn't have opposed if I'd thought it'd change the result – I just wanted to register my disapproval, although you have now explained that there was nothing to disapprove of apart from an ambiguous comment. Sorry if I caused offence. David Mestel(Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay; what's most important to me is that you not think there's some horrible bigot running around with the admin tools. Thanks for reconsidering, and happy editing! Kafziel Talk 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Lingam
On Lingam: Ok, I respect wikipedia's edit rules but when a faith is questioned by arrogant scholars and mischievous people over a course of time under different names it becomes difficult to make out the contention.I have opened a discussion and there are elaborate reasons to know what is the real reason behind it as researched by practicing and scholars. If it is defied by a someone who doesn't know India just on some of his offbeat research its gonna be thrashed! First of all its tolerance on people's part to keep Mornier's etymology there at first place! when so many people are more worthy of consideration, and someone adds a addon to it. Well lets discuss before changing and that applies to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.85.192 (talk • contribs)
 * Saying someone's opinion is going to be "thrashed" isn't productive. The point of Wikipedia is that we don't need to be experts. If we waited for the experts, we'd never get anything done. So we research reliable sources and write the articles ourselves. You can never prove you know more about this than anyone else just by saying you do. You need to do the research and prove it academically.
 * Having said that, and having done a tiny bit of my own research, I have not found evidence for the claim that a lingam may be defined as a phallus. This site, which is linked to from Mornier's article, does not seem to say anything of the kind. So that would be a better course for you to take than going back and forth on the article itself. If evidence can be supplied that lingam can be defined that way, then it should be included. If evidence can not be found, it should not be included.
 * Remember that the evidence does not need to meet your personal standards. If it meets our verifiability requirements, it can be used and you must accept that. Kafziel Talk 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
After nearly unanimous support, you're now an admin. I considered waiting to let you accumulate 100 supports, but I figured it would be better to give you the tools more quickly so you can make use of them. And besides, what do the numbers matter? :) Anyway, spend some time on the administrators reading list and don't hesitate to ask questions. The community has placed its trust in you, use it well. - Taxman Talk 14:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice one, good luck with it all, just remember what it was like before you got some shiny new buttons!! All the best The Rambling Man 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Kafziel! So close to WP:100. Ahh oh well. If you need any help with the admin tools, feel free to contact me. =)  Nish kid 64  15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Impressive how your last RFA was so contentious, while this one was unopposed. Well done! Second the condolences on the WP:100 – and everything the puppy wrote. :-) If you think what people said about you before you became an admin was rough, just think of what they'll say about you after you've blocked them for 48 hours! :-) Start slowly, take your time, make the undisputable decisions first, until you get more experience. It's not like you're in combat, when deciding quickly is important, here it's more important to be right. Remember that there are well over a thousand other admins who will do something that needs doing if you don't, while you'll be the one responsible if you do do something that didn't need doing. It's easier to fix vandalized articles than hurt feelings. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations per nom and Mousie. :) Enjoy the buttons and use them well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dammit, I did not know you were running, I would have supported. Congrats. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ITs about TIME! :). Congrats buddy, good luck with the tools...use the wisely. ~ Arjun  16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from beyond the Styx - crz crztalk 17:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! Cricket02 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And congrats from me! Enjoy your new buttons. Try not to implode the Wiki, hm? =) Happy editing. &spades;P M C&spades; 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations on gaining adminship, and now Wikipedia has another user to use the tools to help it become better. It was a pleasure to support you on your RfA! Cheers!!! I will certainly look for your name on the list.--Wikipedier 21:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And here you are. I'm sure that Wikipedia is even more proud to have you serve it in this capacity, and I hope you've enjoyed serving it as well. Great job!--Wikipedier 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats with receiving the mop, bucket, and keys! Cheers,  S .D.   ¿п?  § 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats. Don't forget WP:SIKH now that you have the bucket. Baka man  01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * More congrats! May those extra buttons serve you well. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Kafziel! PeaceNT 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, my pleasure, and congrats. No rush with Dhinsa – he's not getting out any time soon! :) – Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles Timberlake
Whew, thanks for your help in separating the article/user pages where they need to be. I left original copyvio and went to leave message on the user page and got completely confused after pages were moved/redirected etc. Your help is greatly appreciated. :) Cricket02 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'll keep an eye on the article and the user and hopefully we can get this all sorted out. Kafziel Talk 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

John Chrysostom
Help, user 216.125.40.2 is vandalizing the article. Majoreditor 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been a couple of hours since his last edit. I'll keep an eye on his contribs, though. Kafziel Talk 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well...
... while my edit of Hinder was partially in jest, surely we can both agree that they're selling mindless schlock to an American culture that finds itself desperately in need of actual culture. True, Hinder's name may not have came from their Hindering of one's ability to like good music, but it might as well have, right? While my edit may not have been technically true, it certainly isn't false... I believe it whole-heartedly, and I feel it's important for Hinder's misguided fans to know that they are indeed misguided.

But you are correct that my edit was inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lyfestyle (talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Sicily
Have you read about the Athenian expedition to Sicily? It is one of the best documented invasions in antiquity. Athens squandered its fleet, treasury and the goodwill of the Delian League in an effort to conquer Syracuse. the Spartans sent only a general but he won the campaign for the Syracusians. (Jschager 11:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

School blocks
Ye might want to try schoolblock, in conjunction with the anon. only / account creation blocked / noautoblock. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Congratulations on attaining the sysop flag. You couldn't get into the hall of fame, but you're not the first person to get the whack-o. :) — Nearly Headless Nick  14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats, well done and good luck. You certainly deserve it and were rather unlucky, IMO, not to be sysopped earlier, but never mind. Bravo! Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording?
 * What Moreschi said. Belated congrats! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

216.11.6.41
Hi, Kafziel. I see that you're flexing your admin tools, good job! . I hope you don't get upset, but I unblocked and reblocked since your block also prevented account creation, and I don't think that we need to go that far just yet. Even schoolblock suggests that registration be used to circumvent the block. KUTGW -- Avi 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the heads-up. Good to know! Kafziel Talk 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * schoolblock also suggests that account creation may be disabled (hence suggesting registering from home). I do it myself for most school blocks as it takes some of the ease out of it for plain vandals. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, true enough. Food for thought. Kafziel Talk 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that should only be used when schoolblock with account creation has failed to prevent vandalism. I think we should start small and increase, rather than break out the super-duty banhammer right away [[File:smile.png]] -- Avi 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree so far. I've been removing the check from the account creation box for school IPs. My philosophy on that might change once I have more than 36 hours of experience, but it's working okay for now. :) Kafziel Talk 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI
See the last entry here. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha! Sweet! Kafziel Talk 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it... -- nae'blis 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorised?

 * I have a better Idea, articles with Category:Uncategorised should be moved to the proper spelling of Category:Uncategorized  don't you think?   Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the British English spelling. American English wins out on a lot of stuff on Wikipedia, so why not give a cookie to the Brits now and then? Kafziel Talk 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel, Thank you so much for the welcome. I have registered with Wikipedia because of a class project, and have found the whole process very interesting. I would like to continue submitting on my own.

I have made some definite newcomer mistakes, and could really use your help. My first question would be how to add a subtopic to an article, or an article to a page. I mistakenly signed someone else's work, and then when I tried to correct it I lost my work.

I am going to try again, as it is a class project my professor will be looking for the article. I also would like to cite the works I mentioned in the article.

I appreciate any help you can give me. Thank you again for the encouragement and your offer of help.
 * Looks like you have the subtopic part down: ==(subtopic title)== makes a subtopic, and ===(subtopic title)=== makes a sub-subtopic. To start a new page, you can type the title into the search box. If there's no such article, a red link to the article will show up at the next page. Click on that and you will have a brand new page to start working with.
 * On that note, just make sure your contributions are in line with the rules of Wikipedia. Everything you say needs to be verifiable, presented with a neutral point of view, not copyrighted material and yet not your own research.
 * A tip: phrases like "a tender romance that captured America" don't really work on Wikipedia, because it's someone's opinion that it was tender, and the claim that it captured America can't be verified. It's biased. So do your best to stay away from that sort of thing.
 * If you want to give me more specifics about what you need, I'll be happy to give you a hand. Or, you can just be bold and jump in; someone will come along and fix any mistakes you might make, so just be willing to let them edit your work and it will be brought in line with our guidelines soon enough. As long as you're trying to be constructive, nobody will mind if you make some mistakes. Kafziel Talk 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what I did wrong now. When I first tried to input my article, I did the category:topic command, and then clicked the signature command, which ended up changing the place of the Seventies in Literature article and signing my name to it. How that happened I am not quite sure, especially since the article ended up on that page twice, once with its title, and once with the article above it, signed by me. Then I got the vandalism bot thing.

Ok, so I know not to do that again. I should have clicked the edit at the top of the page, and inserted my article, not the edit at the article that I thought mine should go after.

Having said all that, I also feel that the article is redundant, but am hoping that somehow it stays long enough for my professor to see it.

This is not my preferred subject area, but am in a graduate history class with the seventies as the topic.

Thanks for your help, that is the first time I saw the subtopic command anywhere. To an outsider the directions are not too clear, but I am catching on.

By the way, how do I answer on my own page. My answers keep going to yours. I know these questions seem simple, but I'm just not seeing it.

Thanks!

Not vandalism?
Hi, you rejected a report of vandalism concerning an anon-IP [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=106371479&oldid=106370945 here]. This isn't a content dispute, because the book in question (Mao: The Unknown Story) DOES depict Mao as being like worse than Stalin. I don't know why he is doing it – maybe he is some Stalin-fanboy – but either way he is deliberately arsing about with the article. He keeps doing it, despite what anyone says. So how am I supposed to report him? It IS vandalism, even if it is minor. By the way please respond on my talk page.

Second, how should I deal with this vandal? User:John Smith's Vandal. If you could delete him I would appreciate it – thanks. John Smith&#39;s 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't respond to my queries about User:John Smith's Vandal. Isn't the name itself inappropriate, not just the fact he edited my user page? John Smith&#39;s 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't reply about the John Smith's Vandal thing because he had already been indefinitely blocked by another admin by the time I got your message. His username was definitely inappropriate, which I believe is why he was blocked immediately. Kafziel Talk 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimblow Wales
Good block. – RossJ81 | Talk 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, thanks! Yeah, that one was a no-brainer. :) Kafziel Talk 17:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SHOTY
Hi, I was wondering why you are equating The Razzies which is a quasi foundation over 25 years old with Deadspin's SHOTY award which has little status or history. Thanks Catherine Huebscher

How to block
Hi; excuse me but I am not familiar with the blocking procedure and since I see your name in the blocking log where I was trying to find out, you may be of help. Would you please look into this? The article is Economy of Spain, almost daily, a anon static IP (User talk:130.156.76.100 which I just find out as I write this is some sort of high school) comes to vandalize with the same foolish nonsense. Would you tell me how to proceed? Feel free to do yourself if possible at all. Thanks. Mountolive 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only administrators can block users from editing. Whenever you see vandalism in progress, you can leave a warning on the user's talk page, and if they vandalize after the level 4 warning, you can report them at WP:AIV. Since it's a school, they probably won't do anything over the weekend. I'll keep an eye on it on monday. If you see them vandalizing, feel free to remind me here. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will certainly keep you posted as it happens again. By the way, I just read now your user's and the Jedi questions and the Puritans machinations are damn genious indeed! :D Mountolive 05:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Google with open Eyes
Excuse me, I have POSTED NO anti-Deadspin rants outside of Wikipedia, so please do not vilify me. DEADSPIN POSTED THOSE ABOUT ME which they pasted from wikipedia, got it? Read and research before you point fingers okay, isn't that what you've been trying to tell me Kafziel? Catherine Huebscher

Heya
The "Things that Make Me Laugh" made me noseboot. Why can't I ever find funny stuff like that? lolArcayne 02:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel, I was trying to add a page about what my firm does to serve the non-profit establishment, and you deleted my article. Although I appreciate that the article may have sounded a bit commercial, I ask that you rewrite it in an acceptable format and repost it for me. I am sorry if I did not use the proper format. I am posting this to provide no-cost consulting to qualified 501c3 charities. Thank you! - Adam Armbruster

I guess, I'll Just rewrite it then... I'm on the board of trustees with the organization and if you looked at the web page and member email you would have seen this. But yes I do like knowing my rights are being protected. I thought that since I wrote the "Regimental" History myself, i would have no problem posting it on here. Now when I rewrite the article, does that mean anyone can copy and paste it to their site, or is it then protected further by Wiki? Thanks Again!

14th Brooklyn
I guess, I'll Just rewrite it then... I'm on the board of trustees with the organization and if you looked at the web page and member email you would have seen this. But yes I do like knowing my rights are being protected. I thought that since I wrote the "Regimental" History myself, i would have no problem posting it on here. Now when I rewrite the article, does that mean anyone can copy and paste it to their site, or is it then protected further by Wiki? Thanks Again!

I really have no preference, it is volunteer work, so I guess the more it gets exposed the better, however that is up to you. -Adam

Carlos Latuff
would appreciate some input on why repeated refferance to my personal name both on talk page and on edit page is not considered as vandalism, esp. when it is made while using an anonymous account. Jaakobou 23:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't say that the use of your name was the problem. You didn't say so in your report at AIV and you didn't say you had a problem with it during your discussion at Talk:Carlos Latuff. Also, there are no warnings on the user's talk page, and no requests for him to stop using your real name. I'm not going to block him on a technicality without any warnings being issued. Looking at the links you listed, I didn't see any personal attacks. He feels you are biased, and your edits don't necessarily disprove that idea. What I see looks more like a content dispute, and AIV is only for reporting vandalism. Kafziel Talk 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jordan James (filmer)
Thanks for letting me know about that. At the time it showed up when I was on NPP the article was only a two-liner. Agree that it looks substantial enough now to remain until someone else has a look. thewinchester 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dickrichard
You might want to have a look at his user page, and his user talk page. I don't think I can count how many rules regarding civility and no personal attacks that are broken on his pages. ThePointblank 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another admin blocked him indefinitely, and I've protected his userpages to prevent him from editing them. Kafziel Talk 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal reporting
Sorry, reported that IP early. Then reverted your comment by mistake when trying to revert my report. I'll just leave it alone! ConDem Talk 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, it's no problem. I figured that's what happened. I'm watching him. Kafziel Talk 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This user[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=107617377&oldid=107617170] knows all about blocks from admins as a result of vandalism. Makes only vandalism edits. So, what would you say this is if not a vandalism-only sock? — coe l acan t a lk  — 19:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems more like a content dispute/edit warring thing than simple blatant vandalism. I'm watching the situation and if the user continues the edit war after Lquilter's excellent explanation, I'll definitely step in. Of course, if you think it's a sock of a particular blocked user, you can always run it through CheckUser. Kafziel Talk 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I figured with the "making it look like a police bust in a massive orgy" comment, it was as obvious as an edit summary of "LOL HAX". I don't edit the PETA article so I don't know what the recurrent vandals there look like; I can't suggest any particular sock. But whatever. Vandal patrol is pointless at certain times of the day. — coe l acan t a lk  — 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The gold article vandal
Thanks for the 2 week block. Very appropriate, and high time! S B Harris 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Kafziel Talk 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Appealing blocking action
I'm unsure if the action in question was done exclusively on your own discretion, however, briefly browsing the alleged vandalism perpetrated by User:Thesource42 leaves me with the impression that this was at the very least a particularly bad faith decision. The user has notedly "spammed" several talk pages with his message, however, it is a most reasoned and obviously earnest communication and all the talk pages were in fact closely related to the topic of the user's submission. I therefore initially ask you to revoke your blocking, or at least reduce the blocking period from a drakonian eternal duration to a short period making your administrative action more into a warning which I believe must be the proper sanction for this user's transgression. __meco 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add to this -- I first encountered this user when I saw him on RC patrol blanking other people's user pages to make a WP:POINT. It's obvious that User:Thesource42 has a lot to learn about contributing here.  From what I saw, the trouble started when he tried to add some text to Clairsentience that was entirely original research, then couldn't understand/accept WP:NOR when it was explained.  Obviously the talk page spamming was inappropriate, but I did notice that he stopped edit warring on Clairsentience when asked (i.e., he showed he would stop violating a policy when warned).  He was warned about the talk page spamming, but only 16 minutes before the block.  I'm not sure of the best way to handle this, but when I went to his user page to see if he how he was doing with his version of the clairsentience article, I was surprised to see the indefblock notice. Thesource42 is not so much a "vandal" as a "new user who doesn't understand Wikipedia policy and has a hard time cooperating with others".  Dave  6 talk 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for the input. After a closer look at his contributions I can see that there are some constructive edits, so I've unblocked him effective immediately. Kafziel Talk 12:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's ode to the helpful admin

 * I spend a lot of time patrolling Recent Changes,
 * Looking for destruction that's been wrought on our pages,
 * There are more silly people than I could possibly handle,
 * So thank you blocking this annoying vandal. --Dweller 14:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, that's awesome! Glad I could help. Kafziel Talk 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DPS24
Why was the Akai DPS24 article deleted?

And what would make it acceptable without resorting to some burecratical BS, yet inform us musicians of what these products are?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.90.92.120 (talk • contribs)
 * As it was, the article was an advertisement from start to finish, without any real assertion of notability. That means it could be deleted immediately and without discussion. We're not an advertising service and we don't make recommendations about products or services; musicians will just need to be informed about these products via independent reviews or on the company's website.
 * We have notability standards for products and this doesn't seem to meet them, so I doubt a deletion review would be successful (and that process is probably the kind of bureaucratic BS you want to avoid anyway) but you're welcome to give it a shot. If it can be shown to meet our standards and rewritten to conform to our guidelines, the community might agree that it could be restored. Kafziel Talk 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a question still though. Can a list of specifications be considered an advertisement? It would seem to me that specifications are neutral and not an endoresement. This way, if one is reading an article on DAW's, seeing an entry for Akai DPS24, they can then read it's specifications. I could see an article talking about being "so much better than any competitor" as being blatent for sure and should be marked for speedy deletion. But a list of specs seems to be clearly withing the point of having Wikipedia in the first place. And encyclopedic entry listing the date of manufacture, history of upgrades, uses in the industry, and specifications.

Under your current guidelines, you should be marking the "Chevrolette Corvette" for speedy deletion. Blatant advertisement to me. Does that make the point?

I really appreciate your help. db9091 (didn't log in, but thats me)
 * No, because the Corvette is obviously a notable product, with a long history and lots of coverage in books, newspapers, magazines, and other independent sources. It's famous worldwide, so it easily meets our requirements. The DPS article wasn't deleted because it had a list of specs; it was deleted because there was no credible assertion of its importance and it was essentially an advertisement. Kafziel Talk 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it CAN be included under the article on AKAI as a company as one of it's products, but until it obtains Notability or is unweildy, it can't be broken out into it's own article, unless it's a summary. That's what I'm reading.

I know, for example, that this product has published magazine reviews. It has DVD's made about it. (and YouTube entries) It is known worldwide and has a market wordwide. It is also one of the leading products (there is a group of them, not saying this is the best) that is allowing professional recording to be done at home. This is important in two ways. One is reducing costs of music production. The other is cracking open what used to be the venue of professionals to the amateur market. Although professionals use this in their studio as their main recording unit. So what I'm asking is, published magazines, published DVD's (which aught to be akin to a published book, no?), professional albums recorded, and being a part of a revolution in the history of music, these still fall short of the wikipedia "notability" clause? (not trying to be picky; really trying to understand this criteria before I start adding to articles that will only be deleted and my work gone to nothing) Again, thank you so much, db9091 (member)
 * Product reviews don't count. I'm talking about multiple articles about the product's impact, notability, etc. Not just articles that mention it in passing along with other brands, but in-depth articles about this one thing. Something to back up your claim that it's "a revolution in the history of recording", a dubious claim at best. If it's really so revolutionary, there should be tons of industry articles about it. Software that lets people record without major record labels is nothing new at all. Whether or not it's of comparable "pro" quality is one person's opinion, as is whether or not it's "affordable". Stuff like that is the kind of advertising language that sends up red flags and gets articles deleted. Generally, yes, it should just be included in the company's article. And only in a very neutrally-worded way. Kafziel Talk 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Just trying to figure this thing out! THanks!

Lock and Dam No. 23
Sorry about the nonsense tag, I didn't know what to put it under it seemed like nonsense since it doesn't exist. AfD seems a bit over kill, but if that's what it takes I guess I can put it up. Upper Mississippi River and the USACE web pages indicate that there is no Lock and Dam Number 23.  As to why there is no number 23, I can't answer that. There is a 5 and a 5A so maybe that messed with the numbering somehow. I've been trying to find a historical dam, but the only hit I can get for a historical Lock and Dam 23 is on on the Ohio River. This one looks like it was a bulk created stub that just overlooked the fact that there is no number 23. --Dual Freq 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can skip AfD if you can show your evidence to User:Ptdecker and get him to request deletion as an "author requested". There are no other significant contributors to the article, so I could delete it if he's okay with it. Just tell him to drop me a line or blank the page if he agrees, and I'll delete it. Kafziel Talk 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indigo Moss
Hi there I'm trying to create a page for indigo Moss but it keeps on getting deleted (o'm very new to this, I have seen your guidelines and this band have all the folowing things needed, I can send all the cuttings from The NME, the Guardian, time out etc etc. - What am i doing wrong?) Simonjarvis 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To even have a chance of not being deleted, the article needs to explain why the band meets the notability requirements. Nonsense like "old Timey, bona-fidey bunch of God-fearing, Revenuer terrified young men and women folk" does nothing to establish this. Claims of coverage don't work, either; you need to prove it. The article as it is doesn't even say Indigo Moss is a band, let alone give any evidence that they are notable. I strongly suggest using your sandbox to start a practice article before trying to force one into Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gurmeet so lonely...
...in federal prison... languishing... for LIFE!!... Do you think they allow him the hair and the turban there? How about the dagger?! :) Least you could do for the man is write a wikipedia article! - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha ha... I was just thinking about that today. Got sidetracked this morning, but I'm definitely going to fill it out a bit more this afternoon. Kafziel Talk 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, what is the source of your recent interest in Sikhism, if I may ask? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I could say. It's kind of a stream of consciousness thing – you know how you'll be doing one thing and click a link that leads you to something else, and eventually you don't know how you got there? I think it had something to do with spam in an article about some Indian locale. Oh, and a series of photos I sent for deletion because they had watermarks on them. I'm not certain exactly how it all happened. But I figured if somebody's going to write this stuff, it might as well be somebody who has a decent grasp of English and a neutral point of view. :) Kafziel Talk 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship
 

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Montclair High School
Dear Kafziel,

It seems that you have taken the action of blocking my school, Montclair High School, and i take issue with your action. while i realize that your concern with vandalism is a righteous one, i believe that the value of a scholastic institute being able to edit the encyclopedia, especially some of the small learning communities that are present at our school. Drop me a message and thanks for reading.

From, Thomas S.B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foskidurius (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure which account you are referring to (I block lots of schools every day) but here's how I look at the school block situation:
 * Everyone is still able to read Wikipedia, just not edit it. You can't edit Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times, but that doesn't mean they're useless for educational purposes.
 * If editing is really that important, anyone can create an account outside school and then use it to sign in at school.
 * Teachers can avoid getting their school blocked in the first place by maintaining better supervision in their classrooms and making sure their students are not vandalizing articles. If they can't be bothered to do that, then the school as a whole will suffer.
 * Most school blocks only last for a few months at the very most, and many are only for a day or two at a time. We want to encourage contributions, but our priority is to create a quality encyclopedia. Kafziel Talk 14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

HEY!
lol. if your gunna take out Gouch N. Balls. Take out the pages Midget Pistol Wipper and Jack Mehoff too. Me and my friends were making them, and i dont want to be the only one who got his page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.13.27 (talk • contribs)
 * Done. I blocked all of you, too. Hope that helps. Kafziel Talk 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries
Glad to. Had a laugh at the message above, too :) riana_dzasta 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV
FYI, in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=108677794&oldid=108677152 this edit] you (inadvertently, I'm sure) removed one of the example entries and the end comment tag from the instructions section of WP:AIV. This confused the bots (and possibly some users) until it got cleaned up a few edits later. We've got a new version of the bots in testing that should resolve most of the issues they have with reports in the wrong place, but even that version can't handle it when the comment never gets closed :) Not a huge deal, but if you could try to avoid it in the future, that would be awesome.  Thanks, and thanks for your assistance in keeping AIV clear! —Krellis 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoah, that's a first for me. Sorry about that. Kafziel Talk 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CroDome
Kafziel, please calm down. I think you have been trolled (he tried to do the same to me, calling me a Serb and so on). Comments like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroDome&diff=108886770&oldid=108884598 this] do not help. Regards, -- Asterion talk 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC) PS: Congrats on your adminship. -- Asterion talk 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't planned on adding anything else to the conversation, but I also don't think I said anything inappropriate. I actually think it was overly polite. There are certainly no insults or anything like that. It's just frank dialogue. It might not help the situation, but it's not hurting it, either. If we're not going to give in to his every demand, then there's certainly no point in pandering to him on his talk page. Kafziel Talk 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For your block of 216.99.56.235. -- Hojimachong talkcon 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Kafziel Talk 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Muzikus
You removed the "speedy delete" tag but without any explanation that I could see. Why? Robinson weijman 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to assert notability as a university organization, so I don't feel it should be speedied. Whether it actually is notable is another story, but that's a job for AfD. I'd agree that it's probably not notable but others might disagree so it's probably better to have a broader discussion in this case. Kafziel Talk 15:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the prompt reply. Will you add this comment to the discussion page itself?  (I've also added a link to here.)  Robinson weijman 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'll copy it over there. Kafziel Talk 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, for clarity and promptness. I have a question – the article was left untouched after I had added a "Notability" mark to it for a week.  That's why I added the Speedy Delete.  My question is – what should I have expected?  Should I have waited a day, a week, a month or ... how long?  A related question is what should I have done after the waiting period was over?  Added a Speedy Delete tag, or a normal Delete tag, or what?  Thanks.  Robinson weijman 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't bother with notability tags or prod tags; they just give bogus articles extra time. I let an AfD nomination do the job of the notability tag. If it's notable, then the article can be fixed up enough during the AfD debate to avoid deletion. If it's not, then you get results without any exra wasted time. As for deciding between speedy and regular deletion: when in doubt, send it to AfD. If it gets there and it's obviously non-notable, an admin can always speedy it and close the debate early. Kafziel Talk 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you. I've now added a AFD tag.  Robinson weijman 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deadkid dk
Has been a nusence to wikipedia, i respect your decision to not block him, but please do not tell me I am in the wrong for reporting his abuse...Thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Headache (talk • contribs)
 * You are in the wrong for reporting it at AIV. Which is why it was removed. Kafziel Talk 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to At The Throne of Judgment
Your recent edit to At The Throne of Judgment ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=At_The_Throne_of_Judgment&diff=prev&oldid=109347747 diff]) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese instruments
Hi, thanks for your work on the Chinese musical instruments things. Sometimes we get this thing where an editor will all of a sudden make big, unilateral (and often mistaken) changes without discussion first, absolutely sure that s/he is doing the right thing. Our work can help to moderate this sort of thing, so that's good. Badagnani 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, now the editor (User:Ideogram) who moved a page from Traditional Chinese musical instruments to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments, predictably, doesn't want to fix the 50 or so redirects, because s/he is too busy with other things. I asked nicely, stating that the page-name-changer is the one who needs to do this. S/he doesn't seem to believe me. Is there a rule stating that someone who moves a page should fix the redirects or is it an unwritten rule, just part of "being nice"? Badagnani 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The links seem to be okay as they are. I know back in the day we used to change every page to avoid redirects, but now the guideline prefers to just leave the redirects where they are for the most part. Something about how it takes more bandwidth to fix them than it does just to leave them in place. So as long as there aren't any redirects that point to other redirects, it's okay. Kafziel Talk 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Badagnani 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I have one more question. You just reverted a page move that you said wasn't a simple list. Well, the Traditional Chinese musical instruments, Guqin literature, and Qinpu weren't simple lists either, as they contain a lot of description. What do you think about those moves? Badagnani 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He did post a request on the administrators noticeboard to have a couple of articles moved, and another admin did move some. I asked him (and so did the admin there) to use WP:RM from now on, so that should help. Kafziel Talk 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani seems to be practicing a revert-first-ask-questions-later strategy. Whenever one of my edits contains one thing he doesn't like, he reverts the whole thing without considering the merits of the other parts of the edit. The latest example is at North American Guqin Association where I made a perfectly good copyedit along with a more controversial removal of a nav template. He reverted the whole thing without comment. Then, when I replaced my changes, he reverted again, and did his own copyedit on the article, which I naturally feel is inferior. Can you get him to stop doing this? --Ideogram 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we seem to be out of each others' hair now. As far as I can tell, all outstanding issues have been settled. --Ideogram 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Images
Yes please, haha. This is my first time using, (well, updating/writing) Wikipedia, so I basically have no clue what to do. The image that I used is from that band's myspace (which, as you've obviously noticed, I've been using for a lot of my information, mainly because that band does not have a real website, and just uses a myspace to act as one) and I have asked them for permission using the image. I don't think the picture is copyrighted, but I'm not 100% sure. And thanks for the help on the page that you've already given me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btbam17 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Any image anyone takes is instantly copyrighted; technically, even a snapshot you take with a disposable camera can't be copied by anyone else unless you allow it. In this case, the best thing to do would be to ask them for a free use picture; just getting their permission won't be enough, because Wikipedia is currently trying to get rid of Replaceable Fair Use images. They actually need to release it for free distribution. It's kind of a complicated situation, and kind of a pain in the ass, but basically if the subject of the photo is alive, we only accept public domain or GFDL photos. That's why a lot of our articles on famous people don't even have a single photo. But if you can get a free use photo, or permission to make this photo a free use photo (which means it can be used on any website anywhere, not just here), then it can go in the article. Kafziel Talk 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

aphrocentric
why was this article deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.134.251 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * It did not assert any notability under our guidelines so it met our criteria for speedy deletion. If you'd like to recreate it, you'll need to establish notability using reliable, independent sources. Kafziel Talk 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts 3
Why did you delete and protect the Kingdom Hearts 3 page?--KindKing 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it has been deleted twice already, most notably at Articles for deletion/Kingdom Hearts III. Recreation of previously deleted material is grounds for speedy deletion. Kafziel Talk 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Contemporary Pragmatism"
Hi Kafziel,

I see that you've deleted the "Contemporary Pragmatism" page. See:

18:46, 19 February 2007 Kafziel (Talk | contribs) deleted "Contemporary Pragmatism" (csd a7)

Why? Can it be replaced? I'm new to this and have tried to follow the general guidelines. Maybe I missed something? I'm ready to learn. Please advice what was wrong with the page..

Contemporary Pragmatism is a serious, well established, international academic journal, See http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rodopi/cpm , or http://www.rodopi.nl/senj.asp?SerieId=CP ,

or http://www.contemporary.pragmatism.org/

The page was deleted soon after its initial creation. In my opinion it could be improved to a stub. The article certainly contains useful content.

"Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub; speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content. Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author."

Eric9876 08:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted my page
Hi – I see that you deleted the article I write on Helpforce, with the reason that it was Spam. I certainly did not intend it to be spam and thought that, although it is a web community, it is still worth of inclusion on Wikipedia as it has been around for a number of years, has a significant following and supports internet users for free. Would you be able to provide some feedback as to why it was deleted and, if I were to retype the content, how I might make a better job of it Thanks for your time--Polasz 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We have notability standards for websites, which you can view here. The article on Helpforce did not appear to even try to meet any of those, so it was deleted. Looking at it again, I doubt whether it would hold up to a deletion debate at WP:AFD for the same reason, no matter how you rewrite it. You're welcome to spend your time on a rewrite, but be aware that (in my experience) it will quite likely be deleted again by someone else. Wikipedia is simply not a directory, even for non-profit organizations or charities. I hope that helps, and that it won't sour your view of Wikipedia. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Kafziel Talk 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply, that does help and I appreciate your feedback--129.234.4.10 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Khalid Al-Thawadi
I restored the DB tag. Use the "hangon" tag instead. The reason for the speedy delete is because a google search of this fellow's name and his band turned up no results other than Wikipedia and a mirror site. I realize that this may be due to the way his name is Latinized, but as far as I can tell this guy seems to be extremely non-notable as per Notability (music). -- Big Brother 1984 20:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Hope that clears things up. Kafziel Talk 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize that you are not the author, but I see these sort of articles get speedily deleted all the time. Nothing in the article suggests that this person qualifies under Notability (music). Even if his band was the most popular thing in Bahrain, he still wouldn't be notable. We're talking about a country with only several hundred thousand people here. It seems that his only claim to fame is that he is the "middle east's best guitarist". But this information isn't sourced, and the fact that I can't even find the guy at all through google leads me to believe that this claim can't be sourced. If he is really the "best guitarist", how come nobody seems to care?
 * At best, his band might be notable, but he himelf certainly doesn't appear to be. Unless somebody can come up with some sources to show that he is notable, I see no reason to keep the article. But if you want to swap the DB tag for a AfD tag, be my guest. -- Big Brother 1984 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I care about the unsourced statements. But not having sources isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion any more than coming up short in a google search. For that matter, failing WP:MUSIC isn't a valid reason, either. That's the very first sentence of the guideline. Evidence like that is the kind of stuff to bring up at AfD, but my hands are tied as far as a speedy deletion goes. Kafziel Talk 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For reverting vandalism on my user page! --Nevhood 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! Kafziel Talk 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here :) Ta very much! riana_dzasta 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Can you please tell me what classifies my site as spam? I added content to the page a used the article on my site as a reference. I am an editor for my site which uses the same types of resources as the other references on that profile. I am contacting you, because I just want to understand the issue.Wcfirm 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]
 * You can't use a blog or a personal website as a source, because you could write whatever you want on your site and then add it here claiming your site as the source. And the fact that you just called it "my site" three times is a pretty clear conflict of interest. I'm sure your site is very nice, but we don't need links to it or content from it in our articles here. Kafziel Talk 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you help me understand what differentiates a valid reference from one that is not valid? In some cases I get information directly from the actor's movie distributors or producers that is not posted online anywhere. If an article on my blog is the original source, I am still not allowed to link to it just because I wrote it? My other questions is that if an actor does not have an official site, why does Wikipedia have an issue with links to fans sites that provide additional information on the actor? Is it that you guys just want to avoid a laundry list of fan sites on actor's pages?Wcfirm 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]
 * Blogs are almost never valid sources, no matter who writes them. Getting information directly from actors, etc. is considered original research and is not accepted at Wikipedia. For details about what constitutes a reliable source you can see our verifiability policy, here, and our extensive guideline on sources, here. It's not only about avoiding laundry lists, but about having reliable, quality sources that anyone can verify independently. Kafziel Talk 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda
If you are interested in my view of the matter, I have explained it here. --Ideogram 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks?
I see you are keeping a close eye on me -- you must be the angel perched on my right shoulder.

Should I go looking for a matching devil? --Ideogram 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for blocking Αναρχία. Their continued personal attacks were frustrating, and not neccessary. The work you deleted that he/she got so fussed about was only a few lines; I'm sure that if Αναρχία believes that this man is truly notable, he/she could write up an article asserting his notability. It was irritating that even though you were bothered to make a comment on their page (which not all admins are), and I discussed why he/she believed that this man was notable, he/she was still really angry with us. The arguments about it must have taken about 10x the space of the article...Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that he got so bent out of shape about losing his work, when I could always have provided him with a copy of what he wrote – I can still access the page histories of deleted articles. If he could have settled down for two minutes, I'd have been happy to do so. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any reason to do so at this point. I doubt he'll be back. Kafziel Talk 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it had been me I probably would have asked if there were any way to at least retrieve my work. However, with his behaviour, he didn't deserve it. I also doubt whether he'll be back. If he is, it wouldn't surprise me if it was to shout at us more. Perhaps if he reads this, and finds that you can retrieve the page, so his work isn't lost, he might go back to becoming a useful editor...Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist with the Food Pyramid Guide Vandalism! Mec modifier 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Ordinarily I would have liked to see more warnings, but that level of vandalism was absolutely insane. Thanks for your work reverting it while waiting for the block. Nice job. Kafziel Talk 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW
Since you are my guardian angel, I thought I should explain my block log to you. The first block was cancelled because my fourth revert was technically outside of 24h (I know, I shouldn't have cut it that close). The second was due to my misunderstanding policy; people were reverting my comments and I didn't realize that adding new comments that were similar but not identical constituted revert-warring. The last block was also overturned as I had made no edits between the time I was warned and the time I was blocked.

Since we will probably interact for a long time (although hopefully not frequently) I think it is important for you to know the facts. --Ideogram 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I don't plan on following you around forever. Your talk page was still on my watchlist from the Chinese Instruments thing, which is why I noticed the other issues. As far as I'm concerned, our thing is settled. Other admins (like Guettarda) can take care of themselves. I'm not in the habit of adopting users; the only time I tried that, I was disappointed. I just wanted to drop you a line in the hope that you can take a little while to listen to others' criticism and avoid being blocked again. Kafziel Talk 20:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well all your interventions have been helpful; I respect your opinion and will listen closely if you choose to intervene again. --Ideogram 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Healed and sealed
Ok, i will try to be more careful...

By the way, i ve a question, the title of this article: Razgovor sa suradnikom:Rjecina/NATO propaganda is very strage, what should i do in such a case? -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as patent nonsense. Problem solved! :) Kafziel Talk 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But for next time, what should i do? -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can make heads or tails of it (I assume "Razgovor sa suradnikom:Rjecina" is Serbian or Croatian or some such thing) you can translate it and move it to the correct English title. If you can't tell, you can ask the author. Or you can list it at Requested Moves and say you don't know what it should be called. Other users will offer suggestions or take care of it. If the whole article is in another language, that's grounds for speedy deletion. When in doubt, you can always ask at the Village Pump. Kafziel Talk 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Federal Commonwealth Society
The vote on delete (this time) was two to one (the Nominator) in favour of Keep. Why was it zapped already? Would you put it back up? Thanks Bo 17:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "this time"; all you did was add comments to an already closed AfD. That's not how it works. The AfD was closed as delete, and no comments received after that are considered. If there's a more recent AfD discussion I haven't seen, please give me the link so I can have a look. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the 'delete procedure' wasn't being followed and noted that in my comments on the old page (which was the one linked in from the AfD notice on the article).


 * I first came across the article after I came across the FCS website. The article was 'live' and without an AfD tag at that time. I wasn't aware that it had been deleted and 'brought back' until the AfD tag was added by User:RepublicUK, Who also posted the only (unsigned) delete comments on the 'revived' AfD page.


 * I have no idea if the article would 'pass' an AfD in its current state or not. Bo 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * RepublicUK's comments are not taken into consideration, either. They are also after the close of the discussion. I deleted it because Samaritan and Spinboy had it deleted in the valid part of the AfD. But I will restore it and have it sent to AfD instead. Kafziel Talk 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there a page that shows the proper way to 'try again' if an article has been deleted (so that it doesn't go bye-bye immediately but is reconsidered on its (new) merits?) – In otherwords what should whoever (it has only IP showing) 'recreated' the article have done to avoid this type of problem Bo 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing like that. It's up to the administrator's discretion. Recreation of deleted articles is almost always grounds for immediate speedy deletion; this is an extremely rare exception. I've never done it before. Kafziel Talk 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Bo 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Area Codes in Greece
What happened to the page, and where can I find it now? I had it wiki linked on my template Infobox Greek Dimos and it's no longer wiki linked, since the page doesn't exist, why? El Greco 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody asked me to delete it, to move the list to that location. Should be fixed now. Kafziel Talk 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not fixed because there are two. Which one do you want to keep: Area codes in Greece or List of dialing codes in Greece alphabetically? Kafziel Talk 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That List of dialing codes in Greece alphabetically just redirects to Area codes in Greece for me. I guess that's fixed then. Thanks for bringing back the page. El Greco 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletion of "Sawtooth Software" listing
I'm curious regarding your deletion of this posting.

Is it due to style? Or, is it due to it being an article specifically about a company?

If because it's about a company, how do companies like SPSS have articles (a company also aimed at the market research industry)? I'm not suggesting that SPSS be deleted, mind you, as I think it's an important resource for the marketing research industry.

Is there a certain standard regarding the widespread use of the software within an industry that warrants an article on Wikipedia? If so, I could provide some documentation.

Best regards,

--Bryan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BryanOrme (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is not a market for advertising. Some companies merit articles, some do not. You can view our standards for products and corporations here. Hope that helps. Kafziel Talk 18:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex Catana's warnings
Is it okay if i move these by copy and paste back to the user's talk page? Right now they are on the user's article's talk page. Simply south 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can just delete them from the article, you don't need to paste them anywhere else. He's been indefinitely blocked, so warnings no longer matter. Kafziel Talk 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Kafziel Talk 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Simply south 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope this was okay – i removed the image tag warning as well. Simply south 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that one. Looks good. Kafziel Talk 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cartana Reply
Ok, thanks. I was actually reporting the article Alex Cartañá in the AIV report rather than the user ACartanaM. It was a mistake. Thanks for idblocking him. Diez2 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on "notability" hurdle for "Sawtooth Software"
Dear Kafziel,

Regarding deletion of "Sawtooth Software" article.

Please consider the following independent references regarding Sawtooth Software, and its stature in the market research industry. I think you'll see that indeed it meets the standard of notability.

First, Sawtooth Software is the 4th most used software in the market research industry (after SPSS, Excel, and SAS) according to an independent study. See the reference and quote below.

"Their analytical and survey interviewing systems are some of the most widely used in the world. Sawtooth Software was the fourth most-used software (after SPSS, Excel and SAS) among respondents to a recent (Fall, 2004) survey of 1,500 registered users of the American Marketing Association's website (source: Marketing News, Feb. 1, 2005, p. 55). Their tools are used over the Web, for CATI and CAPI interviewing, at conferences and trade shows, in mail intercept facilities, and just about anywhere else that people are interviewed. "

You can find the above citation of the industry publication (Marketing News) at http://www.cooper-research.com/links.html.

Also, there are currently three Wikipedia articles that mention Sawtooth Software


 * MaxDiff
 * Conjoint analysis (in marketing)
 * Conjoint analysis (in healthcare)

I also just Googled "Sawtooth Software," and within just a small portion of the total independent hits, came up with the following list. You'll see it is populated by many universities citing our work in conjoint analysis and multivariate statistics and our white papers. You'll also see private market research companies and governement agencies citing our work and our conferences.

Some Sawtooth Software references on the general Web:

[links removed – see page history for reference]

I can show many more links if you'd like.

Thanks again for your consideration,

--Bryan
 * You seem to misunderstand the requirements. We're not looking for pages that happen to mention the software. We're looking for sources about the company. Our notability criteria specifically exclude press releases, advertising and marketing, and trivial coverage such as passing mentions in larger stories. The stories need to be about the company in question, and they need to be reliable sources.
 * I'm not saying it's definitely not notable. I'm just saying that as it was, it didn't assert any credible notability and was worded as an advertisement. You can always appeal my decision by filing a request here, but you'll need better sources than the ones you listed above. Kafziel Talk 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Neverball article deletion – Why?
I noticed you recently deleted the Neverball entry from the Wikipedia.

You have cited the reason "CSD A7" which I am sure you will be able to decypher.

While you are left in charge of deleting Wikipedia articles on perfectly valid Open Source games, you may wish to consider deleting Battle for WesnothWesnoth and GLTronGLTron and Frozen BubbleFrozen Bubble etc. etc.

Hell, why not save time and delete them all!

(Yes, I am biased – I have actually used the software in question) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.17.188 (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm also a neverball user and level designer too. I understand you don't have time to check if neverball is an old game with no one using it or an 'underground-popular' game, thus, i would recommend you to make good use of the 'instant-delete' feature.


 * We cant estimate exactly how popular neverball is, but the download rates are still high and we aren't far from some new releases. I see you dont understand how this model of software is, and i recommend you to read the wikipedia article about it.


 * I think this deletion wasn't justified and i ask for an AFD type of process instead...
 * Epsy46 12:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just took a second look at the article and I still don't see any attempt to establish notability (which is what CSD A7 means). But you're welcome to open a request for review here. I will not oppose its restoration. You may want to review the notability guidelines at WP:CORP and WP:WEB first, though, because you will need to offer proof that this meets them. Good luck! Kafziel Talk 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, isn't there some way to first maybe perhaps flag the article for deletion and let us improve the article first, instead of immediately deleting something (and making us jump the hoops to get it back) that has links to the thriving community, SVN with active commits and even an interview with the author? (Caveat: I'm a contributor to Neverball) --Paxed 09:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An article has to have some merit to be allowed to sit for a few days. This one didn't meet any of those requirements, so it was speedy deleted. You may also want to read this guideline; if the game was so notable, wouldn't someone else have created an article about it? It's usually best to leave it to someone more neutral to decide. But as I said, deletion review is open to you, and it's a pretty simple process. Kafziel Talk 11:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then.... An editor has asked for a deletion review of Neverball. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Paxed 12:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I won't oppose your request. If you follow the advice I offered about establishing notability, you shouldn't have a problem creating an article worth keeping. Good luck, and happy editing! Kafziel Talk 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of edits
What is the easiest way to see the number of edits you've made (i.e., easier than trying to count the stuff that shows up on "my contributions")? I assume the answer is in some doc somewhere but I don't seem to have run across it yet. Thanks! Jlaramee 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are tools you can use. If you're running Firefox, use Interiot's script. If you have Internet Explorer, you can try Flcelloguy's Tool. There are other options, too. Check out WikiProject edit counters for more. Kafziel Talk 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

File:ColJoshua.png
Please also consider deleting this image. It was uploaded only to illustrate the article you just speedied Articles for deletion/Joshua G. Cantor-Stone. Thanks – Rklawton 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Kafziel Talk 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhinsa
Great job! Credit shmedit... - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Campaign Medal
I have a question: For which operation did you receive a Kosovo Campaign Medal? Thank you for your reply. (ps: I have proposed a speedy deletion for this article created by CroDome.) Maîtresse  23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Operation Noble Anvil and Operation Shining Hope. Kafziel Talk 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tonight's edit to Arawak
Could please look at this unsourced edit? It seems to violate Reliable sources. I know oral tradition is strong within Native American members but the article looked okay prior to this edit which should have been discussed on the article talkpage. Ronbo76 04:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * After I posted here, I looked at the IP's talkpage. It appears to be a vandal. Ronbo76 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion question
RE: Deletion of 16:21, 22 February 2007 Kafziel (Talk | contribs) deleted ""how does goldman fit into that"" (content was: 'db-nonsense')

WHY? It's a very popular slang term at RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradvmedusa (talk • contribs)
 * Well, I'd say you just answered your own question. Kafziel Talk 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated congratulations
I see you finally got your adminship ... I wish I had been able to put in a good word for you, but maybe you're not allowed to lobby for it and I don't regularly hang out at RFA.

In any event, congratulations! I saw you blocked that guy at CNN per my request ... you're already putting the mop to good use. Daniel Case 07:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nanobud
Dear Kafziel,

My name is David_P_Brown and I've been conversing with MLA about a deletion I requested. Below is the conversation MLA and I have had. Could you reinstate the entry for Nanobud (or nanobud or NanoBud)?

Best Regards,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by David P Brown (talk • contribs) 13:08 February 26, 2007 (UTC)

[Quoted text removed for brevity]


 * I'm not really familiar with this subject, so do you have proof that we have permission to reprint an article from Nature? I mean, I see where you said you are an editor there, but how do I know that's true (or that editors have the authority to license articles under the GFDL)?
 * I can send you the contents of the deleted article via email, but as things stand now I don't see any evidence that it would be okay to reinstate it as an article. Kafziel Talk 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RepublicUK
I meant the last 2 comments, The one that gave me a warning and final warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs) 15:54, February 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that; if you stop saying stuff like that, a last warning won't matter. Kafziel Talk 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have only been reacting to other comments made to me about me being a 'communist' etcRepublicUK 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons POTY
This is to confirm that I am the same user as Kafziel on the commons. Kafziel Talk 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

re:adminship
Thanks again for the nom. I have answered the questions and am about to "go live".  auburn pilot  talk  21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Good luck (not that you need it)! Kafziel Talk 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (films) nominated for deletion
Wikipedia:Notability (films) nominated for deletion

This is a courtesy notice: Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been nominated for deletion. --Kevin Murray 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)