User talk:Kafziel/archive8

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank-You
Thank You for your service to our Country and for your diligence and support with the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders page Beaconmike (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I'll keep an eye on things, and hopefully one of these days he'll start talking. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment about the Beatles
Hello, glad to see you support lower case. I wonder, though, if you might consider moving your comment or repeating it at the bottom. I think it will soon be hidden as we were asked not to respond directly to comments there. Then I could add my support to it, by mentioning British papers of the time. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to move or refactor it however you'd like. Whatever helps the discussion. Although you may want to copy over the original statement as well, for context. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 13:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to watch your page, so have just seen this. Thanks very much, a very satisfactory result! Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on GA promotion
Hi, I left a comment on the GA review of Kirsten Gillibrand. I'd like you to consider my thoughts.  upstate NYer  21:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Response
Hello. Thank you for the clarification. I apologize if I caused a temporary impasse with my previous edit in a quest of knowledge. Also, I feel that someone may have logged into the website as me for I have never been to the "bog bodies" page as Kafziel said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglais1 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Happy to help. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Might need help with a tricky move
I don't know if I can do this myself or if I need administrative assistance. I would like to move the following articles around and do not know how this will interfere with continuity in edit histories, and other back of the house issues. Since you're one of the few admins I know to ask, I look to you for advice on the matter. These are the moves I propose, in order The rationale for this is that without the initial Philomela/Philomel reference (now at Philomela (princess of Athens)), none of the others mean anything. It is, without a doubt, the chief use of the word and all other uses devolve or derive from it--and as such it should be the easiest to find. Currently, it is not sufficiently cut-and-dry IMHO. I don't see any reason why anyone would object (it's a quiet corner of wikipedia), and I would take the time afterwards to do the dirty work of placing disclaimers at the top of the articles regarding the disambiguation. What would you advise? Thanks in advance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1.) the disambig list on Philomela to Philomela (disambiguation)
 * 2.) the material on Philomel to Philomel (musical instrument)
 * 3.) move the material on Philomela (princess of Athens) to Philomela
 * 4.) make Philomel a redirect to the new Philomela
 * I think most of the moves would be uncontroversial, except for (possibly) making "Philomel" redirect to "Philomela". The most clear-cut move would be to make that a disambiguation page, not a redirect. It's possible that "Philomel" is another common name for "Philomela", but the page didn't say that until you added it a while back, so at this point it's kind of a unilateral decision. I recommend making "Philomel" a disambiguation page, and then you can propose a merge with "Philomela (disambiguation)" if you want to combine the two. If that sounds reasonable, I'm happy to make the other moves for you. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 13:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Philomel", that is a much better idea. When you get the chance, the other moves will be fine. Thank you for your advice and your assistance in this. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I did some cleanup of links to the new disambiguation page as well. Should all work properly now. Let me know if you need anything else. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything is in order. I appreciate all your help. Thanks again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 office hours
Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

?
Are you coming to the library thing tomorrow? I'm considering it... -- Y not? 14:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, how's it going? I'm not sure yet. I have a prior obligation upstate tomorrow evening, but if I can make it down beforehand I will. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I ended up driving upstate from Manhattan tonight so I won't be there tomorrow. Hopefully at the next meetup... Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Stephani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Layout issues
Hey Kafziel, I know this probably isn't you bag, but somethings happened to my layout that's really bothering me. It's not my computer cause it's gone when I log out, so I'm just wondering if you've seen anything like this before. Thanks, Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a new one for me, and I'm not much of a tech guy, but someone at WP:PUMP/TECH can probably help. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Interested in becoming a Wikipedia Administrator
Psych, i fucking hate you.. my friend needed this grade in order to get into med school and because you recently undid his Stony Point battlefield page, he now has is being required to go in front of a board to determine is eligibility due to receiving a zero on his assignment. Sincerely, Suck a big bag of floppy dicks.

p.s. have a shitty life.
 * Your friend had to disrupt the Stony Point battlefield article in order to get into med school? That doesn't sound right. However, if he needs proof of his edits, he can still see the previous version by clicking on the "history" tab of that page. Here's the link to his version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stony_Point_Battlefield&oldid=526657019 Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Azules de Veracruz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veracruz, Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Another move issue
I was planning to get involved in both articles related to Little Gidding which presently is a disambiguation page for only two articles. This could be solved more effectively by a hatnote on Little Gidding directing the reader to Little Gidding (poem) and should be uncontroversial. Proposal: (1) delete the disambiguation page at Little Gidding to make way for (2) Move Little Gidding, Cambridgeshire --> Little Gidding. I appreciate your help once again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

✅ - Seems pretty uncontroversial to me. Quite a few pages are now linking to that article through the redirect left behind at Little Gidding, Cambridgeshire; if you want to fix them, that's great. Otherwise a bot or a gnome will get to it eventually. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was quicker than I expected. Thank you very much. Over the next day or two, I'll sort through the "What links here" and see what I can get to.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 07:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANV
Hi there. Can you please explain this?. You did not provide a reason for the removal in your edit summary, nor any action at all was taken. Have you read the user's talk page? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my edit summary, but that seems to be a content dispute. AIV is only for blatant, obvious vandalism. Contrary to popular belief, users are not required to cite sources and are not required to abide by prior consensus. If you don't like his edits, discussion and dispute resolution is the proper course of action. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, I'm not quite sure WP:DR will work. Just see this edit, made after this another one. The user is not even reading other editor's edit summaries. Anyway, thanks for your time to respond. Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just it - he's not required to read your edit summaries. Or, if he does read them, he doesn't have to follow them. Bold editing is protected by policy. As long as there's no serious edit warring, it's best to keep trying to talk to him about it. Remember not to get yourself caught up in an edit war. There are no emergencies on Wikipedia; it will all work itself out eventually. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet - User:DoneWithDeDeDeee
We have yet another obvious sockpuppet linked to this SPI case - would it be possible for you to block it as well? Thanks. SMC (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. If he says he's here to fuck shit up, I'll take him at his word. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers! SMC (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sara Seegar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dennis the Menace and Newtown, Pennsylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

oops! sorry!
I accidentally blocked you when I meant to reblock an IP you'd blocked -- glad I noticed quickly! But sorry for the blemish-seeming thing. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! No big deal. It's happened before. At least you noticed, unlike the last guy who did it! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sega Genesis
The IP editor you blocked earlier is straight back in the thick of things again: Genesis talk page  Would you do the honors? thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tour of Consumer Reports' laboratories
On Tuesday January 15 at 3pm Wikipedians are invited to join a tour of laboratories at Consumer Reports in Yonkers. If you would like to attend please RSVP at Meetup/NYC/January 2013. If you have questions feel free to ask on that page or contact me on my talk page or by my office phone at 914.378.2684. Thank you.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Concern
Hey Kafziel, I came across this user's talk page and it concerned me a bit. It reads like a manifesto, and contains hateful language such as: "Along with this because the Muslims are not disclosed as terrorist so without the fear of insult other Indian Muslims are also helping them and increasing Terrorism" and "It is not suitable for a Muslim profat to keep the Non-Muslims in his prison, (kill them Because)they may do bloodshed on the Earth". And I found the same info here and here; I believe it's being kept in a talk page for promotion, but I wanted to inform someone instead of going straight to CSD. Thoughts? Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 11:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as an attack page. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 12:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Tiggerjay (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Got your message and I changed the block settings for that IP so they can create accounts. Hope that helps! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all; another newsletter.


 * If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
 * Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
 * We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
 * Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Liberal anything....
So easy: Need I go on? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Worked for the state
 * Speaks Foreign, and not just plain Foreign, but Foreign written in unnatural letters. You probably use Ümlauts, too!
 * Hails from the Socialist Republic of California
 * Has traveled abroad
 * Proletarian Barnstar
 * It's true, I'm a communist. But a conservative one. And for the record, I hail from the Democratic People's Republic of New York; I only lived in California for work, making propaganda films for the leftist media. ;-) Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't New York and California both members of Bluestatistan? One coast or the other (even if New York does not have that much of it ;-). I've never been as far south as LA, and I've only spend three days in NYC. But I will go upstate (Lake Placid) for a conference this summer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"A Treasure in Auschwitz"
Just curious as to why you deleted the page for "A Treasure in Auschwitz," referred to as "patent nonsense."

Was looking up a reference and noticed it was deleted.

Thank you ! Jimmy860@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.121.173 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It made no reference to being a book or film or any such thing, just kind of rambled on about Jews. If you'd like to create an article for it, feel free! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer review?
Hey Kafziel, I was wondering if you could take a few minutes to check this peer review I started. I'm trying to get the article up to GA status, but there doesn't seem to be a lost of help out there. Thanks for your time, and sorry about the "new message" banner this activated; that thing always worries me, thinking "what'd I do this time?" Best, Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 07:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing
Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:FYC set.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FYC set.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Holmes (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Person of Interest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Holmes
Dear Kafziel, my name is Tim Holmes, I am an actor, my biggest acting break of my life is about to happen in the film oz''the great and powerful, in the role of the strongman, yet you keep erasing my name from the wiki page on Oz'The great and powerful, I do not understand why. If you google my name Tim holmes oz the great and powerful you can see there are many articles talking about my role as the strongman, along with imdb credited. Please explain to me your reasons for doing this to me, many,any times. Thank you, Tim Holmes 166.137.208.46 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tim. I'm not erasing your name - in fact, I created a new article about you (Tim Holmes (actor)) and fixed the link in the Oz article so it would point to your new page. (We don't allow links to personal websites to be used directly in articles.) It looks like someone later removed a lot of names, leaving only the primary characters. That might change later, we'll have to wait and see.


 * At any rate, there is now an article about you. It will take a little while, but eventually experienced editors will fill your page out and make it better. Try to resist the temptation of editing it yourself; that usually just leads to problems. One thing you could do to help, if you want, could be to release a photograph for use on Wikipedia. It would have to be a photo you took yourself, because you will have to release the copyright on it; Wikipedia photos generally have to be free to use for any purpose. If you're interested in doing that, I can tell you how.


 * But trust me, I'm all for including you on Wikipedia! You are here to stay. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol laws of New Jersey
I replied to you at Featured article candidates/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/archive1. I found a much better liquor store picture. DavidinNJ (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You commented on the FAC nomination for Alcohol laws of New Jersey. We believe that we have addressed your concerns and improved the article, can we now count on your support? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Gun Control 3RR Violations - help?
There's some edit war going on atGun Control. An editor StopYourBull just broke 3RR here. In his defense it is a tough article and he wants to go at it alone and wants to use weasel words. The consensus is that the article is too biased and loaded with Weasel words and that it needs to be cleaned up. I left messages on ROG5728 and Stopyourbull's talk pages and on the talk page of the article to stop the warring and come to the talk page. This has been going on and off since December but it's gotten contentious in the last few days. It's a tough little article filled with a lot of weasel words all around. These are the parties who have been editing over the last few days:


 * StopYourBull - he's been warned about not warring, he's not happy so he's crossing lines vs debating on talk
 * User:Justanonymous - been editing
 * ROG5728 - left message on his talk
 * User:North8000)

Can you help or shuffle this over to someone who can help or just point me in the right direction? Whatever you think is fair. I've been editing for a long time here but admittedly I'm not a pro at what to do over some of these adminship things...3RR violations. Remembered you for blocking someone else a while back, your username stuck in my mind for some reason. If I'm out of line by coming to you, let me know. I'll watch your page for a response. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ROG5728 wanted me to make clear that he opened up a discussion on the talk page to discuss the edits per the policy but the reverting continued. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just finished looking at the issue and posted a request on StopYourBull's page. If he is willing to revert himself and stop edit warring, he can keep talking. If not, he'll be blocked for 3RR. Let's see how it goes. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you much.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. There is more than just edit warring involved here, and I think there needs be serious discussion about recent editing of this article. I am willing to talk with whomever would work on straightening this out. I have also sought some assistance from another administrator and I do not actually know how to proceed with this, as my complaint needs to be heard as well.--StopYourBull (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted a suggestion for both parties at Talk:Gun control. That will get you a wider audience for the discussion. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Fish Wars
Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi Kafziel! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Pending release of Notifications
Hey :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding User:ColonelHenry and the Alcohol laws of New Jersey page
Hello Kafziel,

This is Kevjonesin. I just came across ColonelHenry#3RR, etc. after I left a 'whisperback' message on ColonelHenry's talk page regarding a discussion between he and I at User_talk:Kevjonesin/sandbox/User_conflict on the same topics you had mentioned. I interjected responses at 3RR, etc. and would also like to bring your attention to the Kevjonesin/sandbox/User_conflict page as well (please pardon, it's kinda' rough and a bit verbose). Also, User_talk:Kevjonesin as well as the various Alcohol laws of New Jersey pages discussed therein. Thanks in advance for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * CH seems to want to be done with this, in which case I'm happy to leave it as well. As long as there's no more edit warring, I don't have a problem. For the record, in response to your question about 3RR, I do not consider "maintaining the quality" of an article to be carte blanche; I would have blocked in this case, if it continued. I still will, on either side, though hopefully it's not necessary.


 * Discussion on the "19th/nineteenth" issue is better suited for the article's talk page, since it concerns article content, rather than on user talk pages, where it would concern user behavior. That's the best way to get more input on that subject, without discussing specific users. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into things Kafziel and for your response above.


 * Today when I noticed that you had decided to go ahead and block CH for 3RR I suddenly recalled that he had brought up WP:ANI on my talk page after I had made a single revert.


 * Or would it have been considered two as others had previously made the same? hmm, That would be unfair to those who hadn't noticed/checked previous history though so call it one edit and a one revert. That's the 'lawyer' answer any way. Hmm, well, on the human front, in my case I had read the history. Noticing previous edits was what had brought the date formatting to my attention in the first place. Maybe call it one and a half. What would your thoughts be, Kafziel? As an admin how would you be inclined to count it/define it?


 * I now realize that what I'd actually seen were hints of edit warring and that the talk page would have been a better place to start addressing it. At the time though, my thinking was that by weighing in I'd be, sort of, casting a vote on the issue. I'll confess to perhaps a touch of heroic hubris figuring in as well. I like to stick up for underdogs and the reasons for the previous revisions I saw were weak, if not irrelevant. One cited "WP:MOSNUM" which explicitly allowed both forms and the other cited a non-Wikipedia guideline. So I went ahead and made the change being sure to cite a clear reason and a Wikipedia guideline as I noticed that the previous attempts to change to short format had failed to do so. Hmm, which strikes me now as making them kinda' weak in the first place. At least the revisions to long form offered something in explanation. You know it's funny how talking through something can make room for insights. I'm recalling that my 'touch of heroic hubris' had actually kicked in before all that when I was just casually reading the (at the time) TFA from the front page and noticed blatant vandalism. Got all excited at the chance to put on a 'Defender of the Wiki' hat only to find someone else had already fixed it when I finally hit 'save'. All enthused(keyed up) and nowhere to go ;-) so I was inclined to jump on the first 'cause' for action which presented itself. LOL, I'm begining to suspect that friction between ColonelHenry and myself may be rooted in similarities as much as in differnces. Doh! the lolz, the lolz... ah, the humanity of it all. : }


 * Seems I've been 'thinking out loud' on your talk page, Kafziel, haven't I? Please pardon and feel free to delete if it's clutter. I'm so glad we have Wikipedia. I learn so many things.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Every case is different, and every admin can call them differently. In this case, as far as I was concerned, you weren't in danger of being blocked. CH wasn't blocked for this, either, but for a separate revert on a completely different issue. It was the last in a long string of reverts, not just this one thing. And if the reverts had been for vandalism, or for serious issues for which there was already strong community consensus, I might have acted differently. There were a lot of contributing factors here. In general I'd say one initial edit and one revert from the same person is fair play. At the very least, though, I'd recommend starting discussion after that revert, if not sooner. There's never any need to panic. Everything works itself out in time; the only question is whether you'll still be around to see it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ColonelHenry
Hi. I noticed the message you left on ColonelHenry's talkpage after he responded intemperately to your having blocked him. (I'm not commenting on the merits of the block itself.) While some of your response was constructive, I was dismayed to see an administrator addressing an editor he had just blocked with comments such as "I’m not going to tell you Wikipedia will be worse off without you, because it won’t. Far better editors than you or I have come and gone..." and especially the comment to the editor that if he leaves, "You will not be missed."

I understand that there was other context to what you wrote and that you had good motives for emphasizing that no one on Wikipedia is indispensible. Nonetheless, it is my firm opinion that an administrator should avoid making this sort of comment to any editor, and especially to one whom he's just blocked. I hope you'll give this some thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was more context there, and a long editing history between the two of us (all of it on good terms, as far as I know, until now). CH and I are both adults. We've met in real life, I've helped him out many times along the way here, and he deserves the truth as one colleague to another. In my opinion, it's offensive not to shoot him straight. I am dismayed at all this condescending mollycoddling crap most admins seem to be obsessed with these days. There are plenty of other people happy to spread bullshit and sunshine around (plenty on his own page, in fact) but that's not what I was there for. I wasn't uncivil, and I certainly didn't lie. I was the only one there being honest.
 * I've never been the kind of admin who passes out little cups of tea and wikikisses and all that nonsense, and I never pretended to be. I wasn't when you nominated me for adminship. I don't use templates, either. I write personal, honest responses. I have for almost every interaction over my several years as an admin. Did I lie? Are you going to tell me that Wikipedia ground to a halt when good editors like Phaedriel and BadlyDrawnJeff left? Of course not. Same for any of us. He's not a newbie who needs to be coddled; he doesn't need some patronizing message about how much he would be missed. He's an exceptionally aggressive, argumentative, offensive, but most of all grown up editor who needed to be told what the situation was. Let his mother tell him what a nice boy he is. That's not me.
 * He threw a tantrum, he was warned. He edit warred, he was blocked. He wanted to quit, it is nowhere in the admin job description to dissuade him. Instead, I decided to talk to him like an adult. I don't apologize for a single word. I could have said nothing at all; I could have blocked him and deleted his page, without any further comment, if I so chose, as he requested. And I will, tomorrow, if he asks me to. Because I consider him a friend. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. To be clear, my point is not that there was some obligation on your part to confer insincere flattery on an editor, or to beg him to continue contributing, or to tell him that he was/is the greatest gift to Wikipedia since the invention of the electron. As a fellow editor and as an administrator, there is nothing wrong with your having told ColonelHenry what problems you had with his editing, and it was certainly your obligation to tell him why you'd blocked him once you decided to do that.
 * On the other hand, I do see it as well within the "admin job description" to try to retain the project's good contributors, at a time when we have lost too many of them, and certainly not to make unnecessary comments that might confirm such an editor's intention to depart.
 * This does not mean that anyone is obliged to take heroic measures to convince anyone to keep editing. There is also a line beyond which urging someone to remain on Wikipedia who has clearly lost his or her enthusiasm for editing does no service to anyone; and it is also important that suggestions that people remain not be worded in patronizing or insincere terms.
 * It is quite true that no one is indispensible to Wikipedia. The project has survived my periods of inactivity, and yours, and Jimbo Wales's, and everyone else's. It has survived without "grinding to a halt" despite the loss of the two editors you mention, although we would be stronger if they were both still here. And it will "survive" without ColonelHenry, if he doesn't return.
 * But there is a time and a place for everything, and the moment when an editor is reacting intemperately to having just been blocked over a petty squabble, is definitely not the right time to tell him that he is free to slam the door behind himself and he won't be missed. I hope you won't make this sort of comment under such circumstances again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should identical circumstances arise, I absolutely would. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If I may interject a thought here, Kafziel, I wasn't offended at all by what you said and one of the things I've always respected was the brutal wisdom of your unsugarcoated candor. I don't think what you said was inappropriate. Although, I do think my block was unwarranted--personally, I wish anyone whose only contribution to an article is changing minor style nonsense (like making eleven → 11) could be bitchslapped more. On the other hand, I do have a few objections to the use of the word "intemperate" because in certain contexts it is associated with drunken belligerence. I'm just bellicose by nature, I don't need alcohol to give me muscles...ironically, I'm a fun drunk--a few drinks would have likely made me laugh off the last week or so. All the best, --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey Kafziel; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brittany Murphy grave.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brittany Murphy grave.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: My edit of the spelling of the name of the Los Angeles pioneer Amable Lamer, mentioned in the See's Candy entry.

I'm sure you're a busy man, but politeness, rather than barking "(then find a reliable source)" will get you real kudos in the long run. Correcting errors requires tact.

See's Candies
RE: My edit of the spelling of the name of the Los Angeles pioneer Amable Lamer, mentioned in the See's Candy entry.

I'm sure you're a busy man, but politeness, rather than barking "(then find a reliable source)" will get you real kudos in the long run. Correcting errors requires tact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teneriff (talk • contribs)
 * Not interested in kudos. I wasn't barking any more than you were. Still waiting on that reliable source; a school alumni association newspaper from 2002 hardly qualifies. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.lamer/1.2.3.4.6.8/mb.ashx Regret and reject jejune attitudinizing. Only sincere sources.

Teneriff (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion boards don't qualify either. See WP:RS. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding that IP block
You blocked IP yesterday, but it appears that with the block gone, he's back at my talk page with the same nonsense (see ). I dunno if you feel right in blocking him again, or if I should go back to AN where I initially posted for help. --M ASEM (t) 23:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I was out of town yesterday. Looks like Starblind took care of it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment
When did it become unacceptable to compile requests for comment on other editor's tendentious behaviour? Please point to the Wikipedia policy that says that I cannot do ti. I can the find the policy that says I can. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I already pointed to it: WP:ATTACK. Specifically, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. I notice you didn't have a problem when it was that other user's page... is it not fair to apply it evenly on both sides? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another user I B Wright had already raised an ANI on that very list where its existence was upheld. Although I did contribute to the ANI, I accepted the admin's opinion that it was acceptable. What has changed?  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of that, and I can't speak to other users' points of view. The page has been there for months and months, with no actual RfC to speak of. You can't just have a page where you indefinitely compile grievances against other editors for the purpose of harassing them at some point in the future. If you really feel the need to do that, you can save it on your own computer. I would be willing to email you the deleted contents, with the agreement that you not use them to create a page like that again. But it would be better just to move on. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the problem there was that I was just getting ready to finalise the RfC, when another user raised an ANI over the subject behaviour (which was upheld and a one week block imposed). This puts the skids on any RfC, because the ultimate aim is that Wtshymanski follows the rules and edits in accordance with concensus.  I have to assume WP:AGF that Wtshymanski will respond to the censure and behave himself in future.  Time had not elapsed enough for that to deliver one way or the other.  The RfC was on hold, but evidence was that it was not so for long.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we are messing up this poor guy's page. :) As I tried to help you with last fall? you need to mind your Ps and Qs with your flippant snarky comments about the person you are building a case against. As I indicated it could end up backfiring on you. I was trying to help you. Then your daddy figure mentor gets in there and warns you that you have been insulted and shouldn't take that behavior towards yourself and that I am protecting the person by attacking you. Next thing you know you are lodging complaints about my trying to formalize a consensus, at the request of an admin (that became invisible and hung me out to dry during the process), to stop the editwarring on an article. You throw insults around, threaten me and next thing you know we have complaints at ANI aqainst each other. It's gone from bad to worse all over a simple misunderstanding, in the first place. You and your daddy editor always have several IPs that show up to agree with you on talk pages and the first sign of content dispute with either of you, the other shows up to support arguments, always in favour and if it continues then IP editors with usually less than 10 edits jump in to stir the pot and then never edit again. Now I have tried to address this with you, brought it up at the most useless WP page going, ANI, and now I am here asking you to stop this behavior and IP hopping nonsense. Log in! Content discussions cannot be trusted, anymore, by me and obviously Wtshymanski, although he will not come forward after he was beaten into submission in the last gangwar. (yeah he is a sarcastic SOB) I don't want to hear about how you forgot to sign in ONCE or how DNS works different than North America (it doesn't). They are not excuses for sockpuppetry support in content disputes. Kafziel, sorry about this here. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is your field but could you have a look at and perhaps close it or something as the whole thing has just broken down into what appears nothing less than trolling/provocation of other editors with some collapsing comments from others. It's looks fairly arrogant and gutsy to me. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC) You may have to view the history for the collapse and revert. This is fallout from the same group discussed above, Thanks (addendum) 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you may already be ignoring this, but in case you are not, 174.118.142.187 has made concerted efforts to remove anything which opposes his points of view or even casts suspicion on his activities. As previously stated there is a long history of making frivolous complaints against any other user who opposes any point of view that he is trying to hammer across.  Bit in the current series.


 * The first attempt is when an unknown user reports that he suspects sockpuppetry at work. 174.118.142.187 hastily blanks the observation.


 * After a revert and further observation that I also suspected sockpuppetry (SPI case still open), a few other users added various comments. But 174.118.142.187 collapses the discussion fragment to hide his problems once again (oh yes, it's 174.118.142.187 doing the collapsing, but he forgot to mention that didn't he?) . This despite it being a very current discussion.


 * Guy Macon took the discussion over to the fringe theories noticeboard where 174.118.142.187 started his stance once again. But once again he is losing for the same reasons that he was losing at Talk:Power factor, he just has not provided a single reference supporting his point of view but prefers to rubbish the existing references.  Since he is not winning his fight on the noticeboard, he wants you to hide it for him.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. The discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard is an example of why we have a Fringe Theories Noticeboard. User:174.118.142.187 is pushing a fringe electronics theory (no doubt at all about its WP:FRINGE status; there are exactly zero sources supporting it) and I wanted some uninvolved editors who are familiar with our policies on fringe theories to take a look. Please note that the Power Factor article was put under full protection after User:Wtshymanski (see block log) started edit warring over this same fringe theory. There is a SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski concerning suspicions that 174.118.142.187 is a sockpuppet of Wtshymanski. I don't buy it (see my comments at the SPI) but we are still waiting for a Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that "Fringe" is only your assigned label regarding this matter and being used as an irritant to participants that feel peer reviewed papers published by the IEEE, considered to be authority of the EE world, and the best reference resources for WP encyclopedia. You appear to be an Engineering quality guy (no pun intended). Now I do not have access to the IEEE documents, at this time, but your constant alleging this "fringe" opinion in so many forums, about editors opposing your views, in a content dispute, is disruptive in itself and fails the spirit of WP. This (here) just appears to be another example of forum shopping for this same venue. Don't get me wrong. Your interjections in DieSwartPunkt's multiple attacks at SPI and ANI have been helpful, appreciated and has slowed down a WP:witchhunt until next content dispute. The tone of your assertion at your fringe notice board [] that I was lying was not appreciated. Yes, I was incorrect in the chronological order I stated the events but the drama used to attack a point that was moot in the arguments appeared to be pointy in a further attempt at ridicule. I saw one of your last comments that you had actually read some of my edit history and I hope you can see I have only tried to edit honestly for the good of the project. The rest is only disruptive attempts IMHO to avoid honest contribution under the vast rules of WP. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)