User talk:Kafziel/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



An editor has asked for a deletion review of Twitter. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Baricom 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Southern Rap Commission

Why did you delete them? All the info was backed up by AP Wire News if you Googled them. :)WT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see much on google that would qualify as a reliable source or prove that the band meets WP:MUSIC. But to answer your question, I deleted it because an editor tagged it for speedy deletion and the article didn't assert any notability (which could have been done by including links to these AP sources you mention that I can't find). You're always free to request a deletion review, where you can present evidence of the band's notability. Kafziel Talk 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

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

Delivered by grafikbot 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

um...this is completely off topic, but I have no Idea how to use wikipedia, how do you know so much about cassiel, and what do you know, could you please email me at, or, either would be a huge help.

Jenni (you don't know me.)


Oh well, I reported this new user because when browsing his first few contribs I found nothing but vandalism. Anyway, it was kind of you to assume good faith and send the welcome message. He did stop, I really should have checked the time code before making the AIV report. Will remember to do that next time. Sorry for the trouble. Regards, PeaceNT 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your anti-vandalism efforts. I'll keep half an eye on him, but if you notice more vandalism from there don't hesitate to let me know. Kafziel Talk 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)



Based on the history of the little dab page, I attribute to you the suggestion that rheum refers to the stuff commonly called "sleep, eye goop, etc.," the little flakes that deposit themselves in the eyes' corners during sleep. Thing is, my dictionaries (and all indicate that rheum refers to any "thin, watery discharge of the eyes or nose." Some indicate that the word is associated especially with discharges during illness, which is really the only connotation I can say I've ever seen in literature.

My old linguistics professor liked to make a point of the limits of English by reminding his students that English has no solid, clinical noun for "eye goop," which is why I take an interest. I was wondering if you had a medical source for equating rheum specifically with "eye goop," or if I should revise the page to make clear that rheum is a more general term encompassing the discharges of the nose as well. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 3 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winter Garden Atrium, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly (o rly?) 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Wow, you've been at the hell, huh?

What was it like (during the heavy period)? I hope it wasn't a too-traumatic experience for you. Westerners that have saw the Yugoslav wars have passed through heavy psychological problems (like the freakin' tendency of perfectly sane British soldiers committing suicide after the Bosnian war). --PaxEquilibrium 12:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Copyright problems with Image:Gravitron2.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Gravitron2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bumm13 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The image in question was listed as having been released into the public domain. Images with copyright marks and that are "used with permission" cannot be released into the public domain. Bumm13 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's an old upload. One of my first. Possibly not public domain, but it's certainly free use, so I went in and set it up with an {{attribution}} tag instead. Kafziel Talk 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10 5 March 2007 About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


I really don't think that the Aveda site should have been deleted. I understand that it was flagged as an advertisement, but it wasn't. It was simply information, and instead of just deleting it, it would've been really helpful to actually point out exactly WHAT was an advertisement. Quite disappointing.

I've restored the article for you. However, the editor who marked it as spam may decide to start a discussion at Articles for Deletion, where the company's notability will need to be established with more detail. Kafziel Talk 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. I'm going to try to re-word some things in the far as I can see, all the information in the article as of right now is verifiable on the company's website. Also, Aveda is one of the largest and most well-known cosmetic companies in the world...and their partnerships, I think, are more important to understand. I would hope that would establish some notability, for a company that has salons in nearly every city... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

RfA thanks

Hi, Kafziel. Just a quick note to say thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Very much appreciated and I look forward to working with you at AIV! (Leave some for me!) :) Bubba hotep 09:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tennis vandal

Could you please block - yet another sockpuppet for [ Lmar19879? Thanks! --HJ 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to let me know if (when) he starts up under another name. Kafziel Talk 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
He is back under the name Tennis xxpert. Thanks. Tennis expert 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
He's now using Thanks. Tennis expert 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

new changes

I acutally have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you have made a mistake while checking editor as I have never edited anything on wikipedia. I had never even read that article. I only use wikipedia for information on many online massive multiplayer games such as maplestory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

IP addresses are often shared by many different people. So chances are someone else who uses your IP address vandalized that article. That warning was issued last June; you don't have anything to worry about. Kafziel Talk 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Steve Sims

Apologies for "getting personal". Not appropriate on an article page.

If you let the high school student be the authoritative source on this subject, then the encyclopedia will suffer. People look at Wiki as if it's fact and not somebody's opinion. If you want wiki to be at the tabloid level then you’re on track. This is a case where the viewpoint is not objective, many facts are wrong, and questionable sources are being used to bolster a position. If you look at his latest edit where he adds 6 supporting articles to the fact that it is “Spyware”, and dig a little bit it unravels. For example, in the MyWay article, one of his six new references is from Spyware Info and Mike Healan, a well respected security industry expert, and it talks about how the software is NOT spyware, but didn't like the fact that it was being hard bundled with Grokster. That's fairly good information and of course just contradicts his entire "spyware" premise. The other places he cites are not entirely reputable. These flaws are obvious to a professional in the security industry, but not obvious to a high school student. I really can't be bothered to fight this battle - perhaps as an editor you'll want to go in and have a closer look at his work. For example - who owns who? According to Steve, apparently owns IAC Search & Media and proves it by referencing an article where Ask Jeeves purchased Interactive Search Holdings. Oops. Whatever. I tried to interject some fact, but am not going to waste my time further. Good luck with all that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bercyon (talkcontribs) 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

  • I don't really care if Bercyon attacks me, my editing competence, or my alleged age, but my research on the MyWay Searchbar article is very accurate and should not be compromised under a false guise of neutrality and objectivism. His strategy of planting seeds of doubt into the consensus that MyWay is spyware is actually a lot like creationists' recent attempts to make it appear that evolution is not an accepted scientific theory and that creationism, as an equally valid scientific theory, should be taught in schools, but that's a different argument for a different day. Just look at the screenshot for the uninstaller and you can see it is clearly some form of malware. The Mike Healan reference does not directly call it spyware, like the other five, but it does say that it comes bundled with spyware and does not directly comment on whether it is spyware unto itself. As for the ownership, I did make an error, but Bercyon corrected it. Regardless of who owns MyWay, it is clearly spyware. Other editors, like Alan Rockefeller keep eyes on it too. If you want more evidence, ask them. SteveSims 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's the screenshot of the uninstaller:


SteveSims 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I have friends who work for IAC (one as a web developer for iWon and one as a manager for Zwinky), I generally stay away from the related articles. I'm not a fan of the companies myself, so I can be objective, but it's just easier to avoid any accusations of conflicts of interest. I'm willing to step in when personal attacks are made or articles are improperly tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't get involved in the content disputes. If you guys aren't able to agree, you may want to file a request for a third opinion here. Kafziel Talk 19:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever - publish your rubbish. I'm not going to lift a finger to correct anything else. You're on your own. Bercyon 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Username Policy

If you look throught the username policy you would see a section called Inappropriate_usernames and if you read ahead you would see this two policies

  • Usernames that promote or imply hatred or violence
  • Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)

Maybe I shoul have sent it to Change Username section...--Cometstyles 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the policy, but I don't feel this fits it. It doesn't promote terrorism or hatred. It's a question, and a mocking one at that. I don't think simply having the word "terrorist" in a username means it's offensive. At any rate, it should be discussed with the user before requesting a block. Kafziel Talk 15:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring in Hutchison Whampoa

I considered asking for page protection there but decided against it. The reason is that the "cool down" provision of full protection makes sense when there is some hope of peacefully resolving the content dispute, but Maviswwc (talk · contribs · count) and their IP (talk · contribs) have ignored many ([1][2] [3] [4] ) attempts to discuss the dispute. So it seems full protection will only prolong, not resolve the dispute. —dgiestc 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I also made a fairly thorough report at AIV: [5]. —dgiestc 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
While I don't agree with how he has been operating so far, it does seem like he thinks those changes are beneficial to the article. So he's acting in good faith, however misguided he might be. Edit warring isn't necessarily vandalism, even when the other party refuses to discuss their changes. I can't say for sure that the page protection will work—it hasn't been tried until now—but if it doesn't, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I won't forget about the situation, and I'll be willing to block him if he continues disrupting the page after the protection expires.
At any rate, a block would be less useful to you here than page protection; I can't block his IP address indefinitely, so he'd be back at the article soon enough anyway. Since that article is the only thing he's ever edited, we get the same results whether he's blocked for a week or the page is protected for a week. At least this way no matter how many new accounts he creates or how many times he switches IP addresses, he can't touch that article. Kafziel Talk 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I can see your point too. Let's see what happens after the unprotect. —dgiestc 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2 things...

Why is this band page ok then?


"My gut feeling is that the band is too new for notability. With no recordings noted and apparently playing only local dates, I just don't think they pass." said by another Wikiadmin person.

someone could of just said that instead of deleting something out of nowhere.

is this all u do all day— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswilson22 (talkcontribs)

To answer your last question first, no, this is not all I do all day. Which is why I didn't waste time repeating what NawlinWiki already told you, since all you had to do was click on the links he gave you on your talk page and it would have explained the whole thing to you. I took more time with your situation than I take with most; I read your reasoning on the article's talk page, didn't feel that it held up, deleted the article, left a brief explanation on your talk page about how myspace isn't a source, and now I'm spending more time responding to you here. So we're not exactly talking about deleting something "out of nowhere", especially since it had been deleted and explained to you once already before I ever even got there. Normally I would just delete an article without any follow up; I delete tons of articles every day. In fact, it seems the only time I get complaints is when I take the time to try to be nice and leave someone an explanation. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
Now, to answer your first question last, the band you linked to has released numerous records under notable labels. Again, if you would take a look at the notability guidelines given to you by NawlinWiki, you would see that doing that is at least a valid assertion of notability, so the article would not be deleted without more discussion. Other ways to assert notability are listed in the guideline. If Zach Walks Away has won awards, toured internationally, been written about in (for instance) Rolling Stone, or has released more than one album under a major record label, then they may have a case for an article. Having a lot of myspace friends doesn't count. Kafziel Talk 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
well then i appreciate you doing that then...
i still dont understand why its not ok, but if thats the rules, then thats the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswilson22 (talkcontribs)
If the band ever gets signed, releases some albums, etc., things will be different. I hope this hasn't soured your Wikipedia experience. We're really not that bad, once you learn the ropes. Kafziel Talk 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xtreme Pro Wrestling

Is there any chance of you semi-protecting the page now you've blocked the sock please? If you check the history just a few days ago he was using 3 proxy IPs in the space of an hour, so he's rather likely to be back again with a new account or IP. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I semi-protected it for a couple of days. Kafziel Talk 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the help. One Night In Hackney303 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock deletions

Kafziel, thanks for the assist with the {{db-banned}} deletions. Cheers. (Netscott) 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. When are we going to get you some admin tools so you can do this stuff yourself? :) Kafziel Talk 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure... they'd be very helpful for sure but I do pretty darn well without them. I typically have the impression that I'm not ready for them because I know that I can be a bit rash at times especially when it comes to editing on contentious articles. I'm sure I'll be ready soon though. LOL :-) Thanks again, (Netscott) 15:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FOFL (Internet Slang)

FOFL (Internet Slang) which you speedied, was up for AfD at the time (nominated by me). Someone just recreated the article. I don't believe CSD G4 applies for AfD's which have not yet run their course, so I reopened the AfD. Was this the correct course of action? I suppose it could have been non-speedy deleted as WP:SNOW in which case G4 would apply, right? —dgiestc 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, I'd say it's non-notable web content (csd a7). But it can't hurt to let the AfD run its course. That way it can be speedied if it's re-created in the future. Kafziel Talk 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI long term blocks

Please use {{anonblock}} as your block reason if you're going to block any likely shared IP for 6 months. It saves us from confused and/or irate emails at unblock-en-l. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find it but couldn't (and didn't want to take an unreasonable amount of time looking for it). I searched for {{softblock}}, {{sharedIPblock}}, and a bunch of others. In any case, account creation isn't blocked, so there's not really anything at {{anonblock}} that isn't in the message I left. My message actually links to pages about choosing user names and how to log in, while the template just links to articles about proxy servers and IP addresses (not the most useful pages for a blocked user). I will make a note of the template, though, in case I hard block IPs in the future. Kafziel Talk 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello again. I'm doing better now - see my recent edits. Just one question... what do I do in cases like the most recent edit to Siberian Husky? It seems to be deliberate misinformation, yet I can't prove it - Mrug2 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's been sorted now by someone else. Sorry to bother you - Mrug2 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was on my lunch break.
For future reference, if you see an anonymous editor change minor statistics without any reason or sources offered, it's usually safe to revert once to the previous version and ask them for an explanation on their talk page. Try to be nice about it, and don't get into an edit war over it (unless you are absolutely sure it's vandalism, in which case there's no limit to the number of times you can revert it). Hope that helps. Kafziel Talk 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thanks. Smiley.svg Mrug2 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Zelda locations

It won't be merged. I've already merged three articles into it. Why are locations found in OoT and TP more notable than locations found in many Zelda video games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll find a policy that at no point is a merge without a consensus allowed on Wikipedia. I don't have to seek consensus whenever I merge a series of articles. Also, don't unmerge articles solely because I didn't ask people what they think. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
An unmerge with no legitimate reason for the content to stay there does not count. If I bring it up on WT:ZELDA and someone opposes it with a reason, I'll discuss. But your reason for unmerging is because I didn't ask for others' opinions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That isn't a policy. Unless someone removed the policy tag? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call it a policy. In fact, I told you it was a suggestion. Twice.

Why should Syberwolf or somebody on the Zelda project need to come up with a reason to undo what you did, when you didn't offer anyone else a reason to do it in the first place? But if all you need is a reason, then here's three:

  • The three articles you merged were good enough to stand on their own
  • Other people clearly felt that those articles were necessary
  • The merged version, despite the title, is not a "list"

Now, please discuss the merge (with interested parties, not on my talk page). Kafziel Talk 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Protecting pages

If you're so keen on policy, why did you ignore the policy that tells you that you cannot protect articles with the intent of keeping it one way (ie, the way you prefer)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but that's not how it works. I'm not required to protect the wrong version of multiple pages if they were improperly moved without consensus. I will not allow you (or anyone who might disagree with you) to edit war to get their way. Now everyone can discuss it. I have no interest in the subject myself, but when consensus is reached the page will be unprotected to do what needs to be done, either way. Kafziel Talk 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, is a move without consensus by default improper? Where is the controversy in merging the articles? The only one who disputed it disputed it because of how it was moved, not because it was moved.
Also, you're required to not protect a page that you are involved in. how do you become an administrator without not knowing that?
And, as I just stated, where is the controversy? Only one person opposed it - you. There's only one person who has shown any problem with the merges. And you didn't even oppose it for the reason that it shouldn't have been moved. There is nothing controversial involved in my move. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved with the page. I've never edited any of those pages in my life. See above for what (I suppose) are reasons that might have been raised had you discussed the merge properly. Kafziel Talk 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So I'm sure that if it was brought to the RfC, no one would say that you protecting an article with an edit war going on in it - and forcing it to go your way - is not abusing your power?
Read protection policy, PLEASE. You clearly haven't. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to do so, although you may want to note that while there's a pretty detailed procedure for requesting merges, there isn't one for splitting sections off into their own articles. That might be a clue as to which one the community likes to discuss more.
I protected the pages to prevent an edit war and to keep you from breaching 3RR (which you were clearly about to do, or you wouldn't have known they were protected in the first place). As I said, I know nothing about the subject, have never edited any of the articles (except to remove the speedy deletion tag from yours), and feel perfectly justified in stopping the edit war there. I also don't mind if someone disagrees with me and would like to unprotect them, re-merge them, or do whatever they'd like with them. So long as it's not an edit war.
Note to other admins: It's 5:10 on a Friday, and I'm about to get my drink on. So I won't be around to respond to further questions until sometime tomorrow. Please take this as confirmation that you can feel free to undo anything I've done without fear of a wheel war or any other silliness. Kafziel Talk 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, okay? You participated in an edit war on the article, and then you protected it. You protected it and forced the edit war to end in the way you wanted it to end. Your prior interest has nothing to do with your involvement in the article. You were involved in an edit war, and you protected an article with the intention of forcing it to go the way you wanted it to be. THAT is the very definition of admin abuse. You can't begin to tell me I have to get consensus whenever I want to merge and then don't even bother listening to a POLICY that says you can't protect pages for the sake of forcing something your way. Also, there was no controversy involved in the merge. No one showed any dispute over its merging, and I should not have to assume that people would - in the same link you provided, it said "be bold". So I should be bold, and at the same time, try to not be bold? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't mean to interfere, but I see an issue here. Although I disagree with how A Link to the Past put it, I agree with his point. The articles have no out of universe information, not to mention lack of attribution to a reliable source. ALTTP's case has policies and guidelines backing it up, and he is an established editor, so to protect the article based on a policy and guideline-enforced merge might have not been the best decision. Plus, policy states that ALTTP had the ability to remove the information completely if he wanted to. This kinds of fiction merges are done by the hundreds every month, and I rarely see anyone complain (they can't, because the merge is actually a grace compared to what could happen based on policy). — Deckiller 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Eh, sorry if I offended ya with my question. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 13:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, and none intended. I just don't talk about it much. Sorry for ignoring you. Kafziel Talk 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Xtreme Pro Wrestling Part 2

Unsurprisingly he was back with a new account 1 minute after the page protection expired [6]. He also hit Rob Zicari 4 minutes after the protection expired [7] and Extreme Associates 3 minutes after the protection expired [8]. Can you block the new sock and possibly protect the pages please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 14:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm just going to go about my editing as if that RFA never happened, now. – Chacor 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


If you feel that users do not have the right to arbitrarily revert their talk pages, I suggest you have a little chat with Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs). --Ideogram 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to. Kafziel Talk 02:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You prevented me from reverting comments off of my talk page. That user does it all the time, including official warnings. --Ideogram 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay, but it kind of looks like your warnings to him were some kind of attempt to make yourself appear to be in the right during your dispute. That doesn't really work, and leaving them on his page would actually make you look worse. There's a difference between valid warnings and warnings because you're pissed off at someone and trying to win an argument. Kafziel Talk 16:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Aveda 2

Hello. I noticed that you reinstated the Aveda article pending AFD, however you did not reinstate the associated talk page. Would it be possible to do so, as this article has a history spaning since 2005, and talk page commentary may be relevant to the AFD discussion? Thanks, --NMChico24 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not much to the talk page, but I've restored it. Kafziel Talk 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :) --NMChico24 02:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts 3

Hi, I was wondering if you could unprotect Kingdom Hearts 3, so that I could turn it into a redirect to Kingdom Hearts (series), as I've done to other variations. I'd keep it on my watchlist so that it won't evolve into a ugly OR article. ' 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


I feel that I must apologize for being sarcastic and rude towards you in our recent meet-up. While I still feel that you should not have protected the page (but rather requested it be protected), I could have conducted myself better. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Geeta Saar

Actually, it's been Speedy Deleted TWICE before, and the guy keeps re-creating it. Zazaban 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Zazaban 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11 12 March 2007 About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PSI List

There was a suggestion by another user on my talks page to improve the content of the PSI List (Mother series) page right about the time that User:A Link to the Past suggested it be deleted. PSI has storyline significance to the Mother series (as I noted on A Link to the Past's talk page), but in what I suspect to be a retaliatory action for contradicting him (I suggested he open a discussion before wiping out information and redirecting the page), he opted to delete the page. If you note the user's talk page history, he's done this to several pages, some of which on more than one occasion. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know; I'm one of the editors in those previous discussions on his talk page. But he didn't delete this page; he placed a proposed deletion tag on it, which anyone can remove if they disagree with it. I'm the one who listed it at Articles for Deletion. He and I may not agree on everything, but he's right in this case. Video game guides are specifically prohibited by our policy. A certain amount of information is okay, but comprehensive lists of abilities, spells, weapons, etc. are not. Kafziel Talk 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I might not have correctly stated my thoughts, but the general idea is that there is more important information concerning PSI that belongs on the page, and was the subject of a discussion with another user just prior to A Link to the Past tagging the page. That aside, he did blank the page and redirect it without a second thought, as he has done in other articles (and without regard for other people's comments or thoughts on the matter) I suggested several times on his page to open a discussion if he took issue, but I feel that he took the actions he did as a measure of retaliation. More content concerning the relevance of PSI in the games belongs on the page, and it was something I intended to add a little later today (per my discussion with Nemu. In light of this, I am hesitant to go ahead and do so if the effort will be fruitless. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been sitting out there for eight months, with almost no improvements whatsoever. I'd say the community has been pretty patient. Kafziel Talk 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, one user is not necessarily representative of the community, the article HAS seen activity, and that does not excuse the fact that he didn't opt to discuss the matter first. I have been fairly consistent updating some of the Mother 3 content as the time came, and the PSI List would not have been an exception, per my aforementioned conversation. Even now, A Link to the Past is still changing around content on the pages even before the debate is over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talkcontribs) 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
I agree that one user is not representative of everyone. That goes both ways, though: you are one user as well, and (so far) you are the only one who feels the article is acceptable. Since your opinion is not necessarily representative of the community, I started an AfD discussion to get broader input from other unbiased editors. At this point, more than one person feels it should be deleted. Kafziel Talk 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - editing articles during an AfD discussion is allowed. Kafziel Talk 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say I felt the article was okay; I said it was lacking content that is important to the storyline of each game which I would add later. As for the editing, I wasn't citing him breaking the rules, but rather having no regard for the discussion at hand; he doesn't seem to be a "team player". All that aside, the article would not be worth deleting if it had the content that I was referring to (that he seems unwilling to add or compromise on). --PeanutCheeseBar 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand about the team player bit, but (as you noted) he hasn't even been involved in the deletion process so his actions aren't really relevant here. As I said, you've had eight months to fix the article. That's eight months longer than I would have given it. Now we just have to leave it to the community to decide. Kafziel Talk 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, some of out there aren't always aware that there is a problem with an article, as you might have gathered by my admission (hence, my suggestion and volunteering to improve it). Despite that, if ALttP isn't doing something to improve the article (which he certainly isn't), then it could influence other participants in the debate to vote to delete the article from what they see it as now, rather than what it was before. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The article had a speedy deletion tag, an insufficient context cleanup tag, and a transwiki tag since the third edit, back in June 2006. This is how the page looked when you made your first edit to it: [9]. Big tags right at the top. So, again, it's not something that was just sprung on everyone today.
As for the changes he's made, the content was removed as a possible copyright violation. We tend to err on the side of caution as far as that goes. To be honest, putting those big crazy charts back in would only get the article deleted that much sooner. Kafziel Talk 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made the promised improvements and then some, though ALttP still seeks to undermine it. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The concept of the article does not belong. Improve it to FL status and it's still not notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Somebody's a little annoyed with you: Kafzeil (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) I blocked and deleted the user page. -- Gogo Dodo 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered! Guess that means I'm doing my job...
Thanks for looking out! Kafziel Talk 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Austol

Insert non-formatted text here

Can I ask why AUSTOL has been deleted?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It was blatant spam, with no valid content. It largely consisted of "Australasia News Network is one of the most advanced sources of news on the Internet" and a link to the website. That's not acceptable for Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


this ip address has been banned by you for vandalism, is there anything i can do to remove this seeing as i am at a school and there is nothing i can do about it, seeing as over a 500 people have access to these comps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Not sure which address you're referring to. If you can leave a note on my page, you're not blocked. The IP address you used to leave this note ( hasn't been blocked since last year, and never by me. Kafziel Talk 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your warning to User:

Hi. It does start to look a bit silly, with the warning tag at the head of the talk page, and then loads of warnings and final warnings. I'm normally a big believer in the test1-4 system, but this one looks a little different. --Dweller 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but they didn't really do much today. One little userpage vandalism (which most admins expect anyway), and one good edit a couple of hours earlier that tells me there's some collateral damage to be caused there. It's not that I'll refuse to block him if any more vandalism comes from there, but today's contribs kind of canceled each other out so far. I'm keeping an eye on him, though. Kafziel Talk 13:10, 15 March

2007 (UTC)

Ok ta. I hope you didn't mind me challenging you. I'm undergoing admin coaching with the Transhumanist (and I'm at editor review, nudge nudge!) so I am keen to develop my antennae. As I know that (too many) admins come unstuck with blocking it makes sense for me to watch my AIV reports and see how they're dealt with and where they differ from my thought, challenge. Your comments were therefore very helpful in teaching me how to handle a mop wisely. --Dweller 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tag and Kappa Psi Epsilon Inc.

I wouldn't have removed your speedy deletion tag if it was the correct tag. Also, please explain what you mean in reagrds to the other Kappa Psi Epsilon sorority on Wikipedia. Not sure what you mean. Christina3kye 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification

The page for Kappa Psi Epsilon is not the same organization as Kappa Psi Epsilon Sorority Inc. We were established in 1982 and are a multicultural organization based in New Jersey with 2 chapters on the east coast. They were established like in the mid nineties or something and are a philipina based sorority out of California. So it would be horrible to merge the two articles. We are incorporated and have a licence to the name we own Kappa Psi Epsilon Sorority Inc. I don't know what they are. Sorry to be a pain I know this is confusing. Christina3kye 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not confusing at all, no problem. I've rewritten the article, moved it to a better title, and will help you add sources to it. Kafziel Talk 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I really appreciate this. I know there's still the issue of notability and all for both sorors, but thanks for taking the time out to help fix my article and move it to a better title and add sources. I'm the president ofmy soror and I just didn't want to let the girls down. Thanks again. Christina3kye 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always been a sucker for sorority girls. :) Kafziel Talk 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your ever up in Newark lol! Seriously you are awesome. Christina3kye 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. I also tagged the talk page to add it to our project on fraternities and sororities, so someone from there will eventually show up to assess the article and offer suggestions. Good luck! Kafziel Talk 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I don't understand why you deleted two of the three pages I just created. You allow Comicon to have a page but not Wonderfest. It's the same thing. A fan convention. Also, you have pages for other magazines. I filled out the talk page and it seems to have been disregarded. What gives?


What do you mean, "disregarded"? I left you an explanation on your talk page. Kafziel Talk 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


thanks for reverting vandalism from my page ^...^ ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Kafziel Talk 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove René Verkaart

HI: Please do not remove René Verkaart from Wikipedia. I don't mean to advertise for myself, but just want to inform the people about me. I've read the rules of engagement for Wiki, and didn't think there was anything wrong with my text. Would it be possible to add just the basic information about me, giving the page free to other people to fill in the rest? Who else can enter the basic information better than myself? I'd like to add a page with this information, if you are ok with that:
René Verkaart (1970) is a Dutch Typo*Graphic Designer. He is co-founder of Stoere Binken Design (1995), a Dutch design company located in Maastricht (NL). He also founded Characters Font Foundy in 2004, an independent Dutch type foundry.CharactersFontFoundry 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did remove it. Please don't re-create it.
I'm not sure which "rules of engagement for Wiki" you read, but the information above doesn't satisfy our guidelines in any way. It also violates conflict of interest guideline and, to a lesser degree our spam guideline. Your biography and your company's history belongs on your own website, not here. Kafziel Talk 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Still Waiting for a Response

I did not realize that it was the responsibility of an admin to unilaterally delete content they, and they alone, felt was not notable. I asked nicely about proposed changes to a bio on John West Kinney and for reasons unknown, you seem to have chosen not to discuss the matter. I understand what you wrote, but you still have not yet explained how it is that other non-K Stevens Tech alums get coverage and Kinney cannot. What's the problem?... SteveKinney Talk

P.S. I just read your piece about "Wonkapedia"... no quality without accountability; close the gates, Jimbo. Brilliant. With all the solitude at your disposal, you can do all the work yourself. :)

Glad you liked it. Kafziel Talk 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And when the doors are closed, perhaps Wikimedia will install you as the Minister of Information... SteveKinney Talk
Doubtful. I'm a very junior member of the Inner Party. Kafziel Talk 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

About Technical analysis software

Thanks for the recent revert. This article is often modified for commercial promotion. If you feel for it, can you have a look at the on-going dispute of neutrality related to changes from Sensatus? Since you are an editor, your experience and feedback in the Technical Analysis Software discussion page will be particularly welcome. Regards. Mfortier 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you also block?

Thank you for blocking that other vandal. However, the vandalism continues with other IP's. Despite the warning this IP Special:Contributions/ has continued. Can you please block? --CyclePat 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thanks! --CyclePat 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FreeCol Deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FreeCol. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kc4

Hey, just so you know, if you didn't speedy based on sources, it was my misunderstanding. I just read the deletion log summary, so my bad. Keep on keepin' on! --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just referring to WP:ATT and that I wasn't able to find any reliable sources through my own searching to confirm its notability (not realizing at the time that Sourceforge is considered a valid source). I didn't mean to imply that the reason for deletion was because it was unsourced, although looking at the summary I can see how one might get that impression. I'll try to think of a better way to say it next time. Kafziel Talk 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you clearly consented to overturn your deletion, I went ahead and did it for you. For your future information, you could just do the overturn and close the deletion review yourself. Or do the overturn and make a note if you prefer. GRBerry 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Good to know. WP:DRV says they have to stay up for at least five days, and I didn't know if that meant they could be closed early by the deleting admin. (Like on AfD, we don't necessarily close early just because the nominator changes his mind.) Anyway, thanks for taking care of it, and I'll know in the future (if, heaven forbid, I ever make a mistake like that again). Kafziel Talk 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody help meeeeee!


Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Yes, I tend to agree.

Request handled by: Yamla 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! :) Kafziel Talk 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AAAAarrgghhh I am soo sorry. That's what comes of blocking when tired. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! The only bummer is that it means some dastardly vandal gets a freebie! Ha ha ha... Kafziel Talk 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Netherlands Squad 1988 European Championship

Hey, I saw you deleted this (and it was transcluded on a few pages such as Marco Van Basten). I was wondering whether you would consider undeleting it (that is, if it was a template like all the other templates of this type and not some vandalism). Regardless of who created it, it is useful, especially since they won the tournament that year. Thanks, Yonatan talk 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that while I was working on them, earlier today. Technically, the creations of a banned user are supposed to be deleted, but I think you're right: if it's good for Wikipedia, it's good for Wikipedia. Since it matters to other articles, I'll restore them. Kafziel Talk 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for IAR'ing this time. ;) Yonatan talk 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Objection on deletion of pooya mirzaee rad

Hi, The article is similar to other articles which my friends made . I tried to add references and some sources. everyday I studied the wiki and beforehand I tried on sandbox. Now when I was getting successful to put some photos with correct copyright way , you've just deleted my page.

There are several websites about Pooya Mirzaee Rad . and I was trying to make a integrated link referenced to each claim on the page. I was trying to add some resources and proves from IRIB and ISNA see :

Anyway I don't believe that this article should be deleted and I was wondering whether you would consider undeleting. Even I don't have the content to make it better and make it a standard one to wiki.

I'm so unhappy about it because I had not comment to correct the problems.

in the article pooya mirzaee rad there was no advertisement. a user introducing web page or something like that. it was all about kharizmi festival which is an important event and winners are most important topics to follow.

Here in pooya mirzaee rad I was trying to 1- introduce the person who had first winning innovation poroject in a country 2- make a list of awards achieved (to show importance of the topic) 3- list the projects and details . please consider these projects and what that guy done was unique in world , so why it whouldn't be on wiki?

Help me to improve it and help me to have the content back .

another one of my friends he is successful to have a page introducing and administrators are keeping him up : please search fardad farahzad.

I beliebe you will help, please advice...

Pooyarad 05:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

pooya mirzaee rad

Ok, how can I have my content? I really need it , because it helps me to try for further improvements.. I hope at least you give it back to me... Pooyarad 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will email you a copy of the article. That is no problem at all. Kafziel Talk 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

what's the difference?

This page is similar. but in another field.. please tell me what's the difference between pooya mirzaee rad which you deleted it and fardad farahzad .. please let me know. thanks. User:pooyarad 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious difference, of course, is that it contains evidence of its claims by citing sources (in English, not in Farsi - this is the English Wikipedia and we require English sources). However, that article is also being considered for deletion. So it is not a very good example. Kafziel Talk 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12 20 March 2007 About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't think It will be deleted! you know, It's depended to mood of administrators like you. I promise you It won't be deleted. never! (plz don't do that because of I said!)

Here it is : all are english resources. I can provide all in english... is it OK? Can I upload the page again?

I think this time I can put a better page online. (I worked on it..)

Pooyarad 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a lot has happened since you posted this. Now the article has been deleted again and you have been blocked (by someone else) for reposting this so many times.
Winning an award does not make you notable, especially if there's no proof that the award itself is notable. I strongly advise you to stop this. Your blocks will only go on longer if this keeps up. Kafziel Talk 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Shite

Your recent edit to Shite (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I love the title of this section. It's the shite! Kafziel Talk 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

I saw you had blocked the ip address user: on March 22, 2007 for vandalism. However, I just noticed several edits from this address today, March 23. Just wanted to let you know. Notmyrealname 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They were blocked on February 22, so the block had expired. They've been blocked for another month by a different admin now, so they won't be editing again until April. Kafziel Talk 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, it was a different month! I guess that's why you're an admin and I'm not! Notmyrealname 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Dear Kafziel,

I would like to tell you now that I am a sockpuppet, and that I should be treated as such. Now, before you take the required action, please keep in mind that I love this website, and that I would like to continue viewing it. I have no intention on editing a single article here ever again. I would also like to note that I have removed vandalism from a few pages during my time here, albeit under different usernames.

I pray you take the appropriate action, and that you allow me to keep viewing the site as a resource for information.

Please contact me on my Talk Page to discuss this issue. M.G. In Da Hizzhouse 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you mean by this. Sockpuppets are not necessarily bad. Abusive or ban-evading sockpuppets can be blocked, but I don't see anything in your recent edit history to indicate that. As far as I can see, I haven't posted any warnings to you or anything. As far as I'm concerned, you're free to keep editing unless and until I see evidence of abuse.
You have the right to vanish, if that's what you want. Is that what you're requesting? Kafziel Talk 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


has new account. He wrote nearly same text on meta --BokicaK 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I have blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely and extended CroDome's block for 2 months. Please let me know if you see him operating other sockpuppets. Kafziel Talk 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism-by-image on "Pierre Trudeau", yet again

Greeting, Kafziel. Please deal with this. I hope that you will, whereas you warned the offender against this self-same vandalism before. I suggest a perma-block of Bmgstfx; it's a vandalism-only account. The image involved needs to be speedy-deleted again, also. Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Kafziel Talk 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou very much for protecting my page from vandals, it is greatly appreciated. Mootoog 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Invasion up for review:

Invasion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

It really doesn't matter to me. The article is quite different than it was when I first worked on it. I protested some of the changes made to it, and I'm not going to get into it again. The standards are no different now than they were then (it was only a year ago) so reverting to the original FA version should do the trick just fine. But you didn't like that version anyway, and I'm not interested in spending any more time on it. I have very little interest in the GA and FA process; a good article is a good article whether it has a little brown star on it or not. Kafziel Talk 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough... You sound a little lack luster though Kafs - are you okay? And just so you know, this doesn't have anything to do with my objections at the article's original FAC. I'm sorta like that with my FA's too - I can't be bothered really editing them after they're featured unless some newbie comes & adds some nonsense... Anyway, I was told to tell you anyway. Cheers, Spawn Man 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not lackluster, just focused on other things now. Most of my time these days is spent blocking vandals and deleting nonsense and vanity pages. So when I do get time to work on articles, I prefer to write new ones or improve old ones, rather than getting involved in questions of status. I'm rarely in the mood for that anymore. But thanks for the notification, and good luck with the discussion. Kafziel Talk 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13 26 March 2007 About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sensei's Library

Hi Kafziel, I was disappointed that the Sensei's_Library page was deleted. Particularly so as one of the votes cast in the poll was by a person threatening legal action against the maintainer. Are votes by biased editors normally allowed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talkcontribs) 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Of course; anyone is free to offer his or her input in an AFD discussion. If we discounted editors based on alleged bias, all one would need to do to win an argument would be to accuse the opposition of bias. Both sides of most discussions have biased editors. That's why admins base deletion decisions not on the history of the participants but on the merits of the arguments. The "keeps" didn't offer any evidence of notability, so I deleted the article.
It would have been better to discuss the situation first or ask for a deletion review rather than just re-creating the deleted article. But your addition of sources may save it from being deleted again. I haven't checked them for reliability, so I can't guarantee that, but it will probably not be speedied because it isn't exactly the same as the deleted version. Kafziel Talk 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but when evaluating the results of a vote, I don't see how an opinion such as Delete Wiki admins censor contributors and contributions based on self-admitted personal dislikes. --User:Frank de Groot 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC) can be counted as valid. This was the caseting vote, and I find that rather disturbing. Beyond this, the wiki is very notable amongst the Go playing community as one of the original voters pointed out, so I found the overall result a bit peculiar anyway. I was unaware of this deletion review process though, I shall try that path in future.--ZincBelief 13:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The AfD process is not a vote at all. It's a discussion, and each argument is weighed on merit, not by a tally of votes. So don't worry - the statement from Frank de Groot didn't count for anything, because it made no sense. All I look at is which side is best supported by policy. In this case, the people who wanted to keep it did not show any valid reasons that were based on our policies. Kafziel Talk 14:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Pikminlover/frown is a recreation in the User Namespace of Template:Frown which was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 21 and I think consequently should be deleted. If this is incorrect I'll take it to MfD. --Quentin Smith 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be more acceptable in user space, so it would probably be better to take it to MfD. Kafziel Talk 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


You need to have a little talk with Badagnani (talk · contribs) and tell him not to be so quick with the revert button. --Ideogram 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani doesn't read what I write, he doesn't respond to attempts to discuss, he doesn't think about why an edit was made. He just reverts whatever he doesn't like, and he doesn't like me. He doesn't even understand 3RR. If Badagnani doesn't learn to think before hitting the revert button I guarantee you we will have more problems in the future. --Ideogram 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) Badagnani is only interested in arguing about what a "bad editor" I am and is not at all discussing anything related to the point. This is typical of Badagnani; he only focuses on whatever it is that he dislikes without actually paying attention to what I am trying to accomplish. --Ideogram 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You broke 3RR and will probably be blocked for that, although I'm tempted to block you immediately for this edit summary. I think both of you should be blocked for edit warring.
He may not be discussing anything related to the point, but neither are you. You deleted a massive amount of text from a guideline that has already been accepted by consensus; the burden is on you to discuss the change, not on him to defend the content. Kafziel Talk 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


hey, can you help me.. i notice you delete articles starting with K as an initial. well, Kaneva is a 3d virtual world community with 150,000 members. the alexa rank is growing rapidly. its in the 20,000 range. Kaneva has been blogged about extensively, as well as, had many newspaper articles and been on foxnews. i think it is notable. i noticed you deleted kaneva as an entry as non-notable. is there a way you could help me put it back up and make the article good? appreciate any help or guidance on doing so. --cklaus

Judging by your user name, you should probably take a look at our conflict of interest guideline. In a nutshell, it says that if something is notable, someone else will eventually start an article on it. We have over 1.6 million articles here; believe me, not much is being overlooked.
Also, remember that self-promotion can often have unintended consequences; if you start an article, you have no control over its content. Any software or web content has critics, and they will be allowed to have their views represented in your article. In fact, the criticism may eventually outweigh the good points, and you can't just remove it or have the article deleted if you don't like the way it ends up. And since we don't allow advertising language or original content (including your own inside knowledge), the only positive points will be stuff viewers could find just as easily with a Google search. It's useless for promotion. If your business fails, this will be a permanent record of that failure. If it succeeds, this will be a permanent repository for criticism. Food for thought. Kafziel Talk 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. i was looking at just making sure there was an entry for kaneva with some facts behind it. --cklaus

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


After creating a new page, what is an "assertion of notability" and how does one make one? I ask because a page a friend created and referred me to has been deleted with a note that it lacked an assertion of notability. THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure exactly which page you're referring to so I can't be more specific, but you can view our general notability guidelines here. Kafziel Talk 06:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14 2 April 2007 About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable" Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


do you can send me to my mail ( a information, who was a Kafziel and what he do, his biograthy. thank you very much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Why not just have a look at Kafziel (the article, not my user page)? Kafziel Talk 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Newly industrialized country

Kazfiel, please see the talk page. This user is being circular about his arguments. I have provided now 2 more sources, and he refuses to concede. Please read the talk page. He is vandalising the page, since two forms of vandalism are Abuse of tags and Improper use of dispute tags. Clearly his arguments are not valid. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What he did is not abuse of tags. I strongly suggest you stop removing the tags, or you will be blocked again. Kafziel Talk 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kafziel, again, please read the talk page. OR and verifiablity tags added don't have arguments. It is not OR since it is perfectly sourced and verifiable. Anybody can consult the books. And I'm concerned about it not being vandalism, since the page says there is something called "Abuse of tags" and "Improper use of dispute tags". Please read the talk page and help me. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Abuse of tags

Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on articles that do not meet such criteria.

He has no arguments, as I said, there is no OR involved and there are references. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
He does have arguments, because the article is not "perfectly sourced" at all. The "books" section is not in keeping with our guidelines. There are no inline citations to them, so the reader has no idea which part of which book refers to which part of the article. They could be entirely made up.
I happen to be looking at P.164 of "Globalization And the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy" right now, so I can see what it's referring to. Not everyone can, and until it is properly cited the tags are valid. Kafziel Talk 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the inline citations. Now, the list is perfectly referenced. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Now wouldn't it have been easier to do that in the first place and avoid the whole argument? This is the kind of thing that a little discussion can solve. Jumping to conclusions and accusing others of wrongdoing (as you did on the article talk page and on his user talk page) isn't productive discussion. Try to be more patient! Kafziel Talk 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I recognize I'm not very patient, but I also recognize this time I was way more patient than ever. What is frustrating is that his OR/V argument is so weak, that he didn't even took the time to read the books! I mean, the logic of tagging something as OR is that you check if there are references (there are...), then if those references are reliable (they are...), and lastly you check if the references sustain the claims (they do!). But this user, I assume, did't like the list (why? I don't know exactly but I have an idea) and tagged it as OR, without even taking the time to check the references, or read them. I hope you see my point now. Now, can I remove that nasty OR/V tag? AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you and thanks for helping to calm down my friend AlexCovarrubias. I also think the problem is simple, lack of citation. He is not willing to provide reference for any specific country and he doesn't provide page number for the books he refrenced.
I do not dispute just one country there, I think all of them need specific refrence to why they are included as NIC.
Although I appricite the fact he is now adding sources and I wait to see how it goes. The page similar to this article topic with proper citation is Great power countries. Each country has its own refrences.Farmanesh 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You're lying. As I said, the two references added by me, includes the page numbers and chapters. Each of those 4 books provide a list of countries. And, most importantly, if you want to dispute something, don't you have to read the books first? You can't claim anything without proofs. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
wow, you are really taking this personal. YOu put vandal tag on my page and call me lier. My freind, I really don't have any personal problem with you, plaese calm down.
As for refrence, you need to give direct refrence why for example Mexico or Bahrain are NIC. Just a general book without specification is not enough. You should identify which one-which page says for example Bahrain is NIC.
PLease look at Great power and see how it should be done. Also see verifiablity policy as says: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."
I can't belivie how much of everybodies time you are taking on this simple issue.Farmanesh 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, Kaziel, I guess you can see my point... first he says there is no sources, then that the sources doesn't have pages... then that the pages must have a table... then that a book is not enough... AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think with your help if Alex does change in the way he said he will do, our small drama is finsihed, thanks a lot for helping.Farmanesh 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Our "drama"? Ha... It is your argumentless, biased, circular, nonsense drama. You didn't even read the books, yet you dare to dispute the content. Illogical... AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I love you too dear :)Farmanesh 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaziel, even with a third opinion, the user is not willing to stop. Please, I urge you to do something about it, his behaviour is clearly disruptive. Please see talk page and the history of the article. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex please see that Kafziel is constructively adding refrences that if you did from the beggining we would not have any discussion! If all those refrences be added I am willing to take out the tag myslef.Farmanesh 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Alex, the only way to get the tags off is to properly cite the countries on the list. There's no point arguing about it either on my talk page or on the article talk page; if a cite is requested, a cite must be provided or the information can be removed. That's our policy. I'm doing my best to help - I've already formatted two of your book references. But until the entire list is done, the tags don't hurt anyone. Remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia! Everything will be sorted out in due time. Kafziel Talk 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping, again. I have also edited the 3rd reference. There's only one reference to go. However Kaziel, I still believe that user doesn't have arguments, because he hasn't read the sources, so he can't really say they "don't suppot" the content. Well, I'll be working in the article as usual. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehehehe, thanks for the beer! AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed with Newly industrialized country

Kazfiel, still my concern remains, references 4 and 5 in that page does not have page number. Frankly refrence 4 is the reference which is not directly related to the topic of page (number 4 is Geography: An Integrated Approach which is about "It is estimated that the Earth was formed about 4 600 000 000 years ago ...". Countries which I do have doubt about them to be NIC (like Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia which I personally know a lot about them) are refeneced to that simingly unrelated book. In other hand Alex seems to tired of discussion and have started to really attack personally (see his last comment in the talk page). Would you advice how to approach? I do have serious doubt about those countries and reference is shady (of topic and without page number). Please advice...Farmanesh 04:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are well within your rights to place a {{verify source}} tag after the countries on the list that cite books without page numbers. Just place a note of explanation on the talk page and try to tread lightly; no need to stir up the situation again by placing big tags on the section. In the meantime, I will see if I can find different, web-based sources for the information. If we don't get page numbers or new sources after a week or so, it would be okay to remove the countries that are not verified. Kafziel Talk 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Kaziel, how can you say those countries are not verified? The book exist, now it is up to Farmasesh to verify its content. The problem here is that he's not willing to read the book. He was able to "see the cover" (see article talk page), but he wasn't able to open it and read it? If he would really want to help the article, he would be reading the book and adding the "page number" he desperately wants. But, how can you dispute the content of a book you haven't read? What are his arguments to say the book is a fake? The lack of a page number? That's ridiculous. That could be called just an incomplete reference, but the title, author and ISBN are sufficient for somebody daring to locate the book and read it. He's challenging the content of the article, just based on his personal opinion, that's not a real argument. A source has way more weight than his "personal opinion". AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I personally read the book months ago. Why? Because it seemed wierd that a "geography" book was cited. Well, that book has a chapter about human geography, including economics, and it does refers to NICs, developing and developed countries. The book refer to Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. in the form of the GCC states (see article), if I don't recall bad it says something like:
"countries considered NICs include South Africa, Phillippines, Mexico, Brazil, the GCC states, Turkey..."
Before I created the table, there was only a list, and it mentioned the GCC states, so I just include them separately and add its statistics. But, again, he can't claim the content it is not verifiable, because he was able to see the "cover", yet didn't dare to actually read the book. That's ridiculous. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 13:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is saying the book doesn't exist. But if you can't provide a page number, then the source is not verified. That's exactly what that tag is for. We can not expect everyone to read an entire book to try to find the source. It's not that he doesn't "dare" to read the book - not everyone's library has a copy of every obscure college textbook, so it's not as easy as you claim. If it's so easy to look this up, you should be able to look it up and tell us what page it's on. Is there a reason you can't do that? If someone requests a page number, we must provide one or the information can be removed. Kafziel Talk 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I came back just to say thank you, anyhow we now have a much better page and more important a good precedent of exact refernce in the article.Farmanesh 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I know sometimes these situations can be frustrating. Kafziel Talk 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pornography Addiction external link

Dear Kafzeil, was originally listed by someone other than myself. I came across the listing in Wikipedia some time ago. Afterwards there were many revisions to the external links. Recently I revisited the section and noticed that my site had been eliminated. Now I'm told that listing my site is spam.

SexualControl offers 53 pages of information on overcoming sexual addictions including porn addiction. I have received hundreds of e-mails from people thanking me for the information about porn and sex addiction. While the site also offers a counseling service the service is an adjunct to the free information available to anyone interested in learning about sex addiction.

I notice that Dr. Marty Klein is allowed to list his site. He too offers information on sex addiction and intimacy problems as do I. Dr. Klein also offers a counseling service on his site. If I am to be removed from the listing then I request that you remove his site also.

It's a common practice for people who offer a service to provide free information about the issues they specialize in. If you are going to remove one person who offers free information about their field then please remove all.

Thank you,

Joe Zychik

That doesn't seem a bit childish to you? "If I can't have a cookie, neither can anyone else." Kafziel Talk 16:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you to apply the rules equally. I would be perfectly happy if you listed my site back where it was. I'm not asking for any special priveleges, just equal treatment for all.

The following are quotes that came in yesterday and today by e-mail:

"I've found your website amazing - I'm GOING to quit this - I just need to be more effective. "

"I am totally impressed with your thoughts and views; conclusions and comments."

People are interested in the information my site offers. Would you please by so kind as to let them have access to it through Wikipedia?

Thank you,

Joe Zychik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

People are interested in pornography, too. Should we have links to all of those sites, in the interest of fairness? Kafziel Talk 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not offer porn. I have never advocated that the wikipedia section on porn addiction offer porn. Comparing my site to porn is not the issue and I will not accept your comment as valid.

Please apply equal standards.

Please list my site by the same standards as you've listed other sites.

Thank you for your understanding.

Joe Zychik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

What I'm saying is that if you're so concerned with equal treatment across the board, if we're going to include every anti-pornography website then we should also include every pro-pornography website. In fact, we should do neither: external links are only to be used when they are utterly reliable and contain information that could not possibly be added to the Wikipedia article itself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so you'll need to find somewhere else to advertise your site. Wikipedia isn't a free billboard. Kafziel Talk 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

You mentioned listing sources that are "utterly reliable and contain information that could not possibly be added to the Wikipedia article itself."

I've been doing addiction counseling for 32 years. One thing to realize about information regarding addiction: there is NO reliable information - for the following reasons:

1- Any studies about addiction cannot be independantly verified because the indidivuals in the study cannot be contacted by an independant third party.

2- Any addiciton counselor who knows anything about addiction will tell you, "When people return to addiction or fail to stop, they usually don't tell you." This is a simple fact of addiction counseling. You'll notice on my website that I do not list any statistical studies because NONE of them are reliable.

This brings us back to the same problem. Why is one person who offers info about addiction and a counseling service listed while another who does the same not listed?

You seem to think I'm running an ad campaign. But by the same standards so is Dr. Klein.

I understand your responsibility to be a clearing house for information. But what is the standard? If it's reliable information about addiction that can be independantly verified then nothing can meet that standard.

Dr. Klein's views and opinions about sex addiction are no more reliable or unreliable than mine are.

I propose that you let the users of Wikipedia decide for themselves which sources to refer to.

Also, there are many effective addiction counselors who do not have the magic Dr. letters in front of their name, but they still have valuable information to help those in need of guidance.

Thank you,

Joe Zychik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

You claim to want to the users of Wikipedia "decide for themselves", but on the other hand you want me to remove Klein's link if I remove yours (thereby not letting anyone decide). We're really just back to the "if I can't have a cookie then he shouldn't have one, either" argument.
The removal of your link in no way implies that I support the inclusion of the other one. That one might not be any good, either. But two wrongs don't make a right. Kafziel Talk 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kafziel,

You italicized my use of the word claim, indicating that my claim is not sincere. I assure you it is.

I noticed that you are a US Marine. The military abides by the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, meaning a code that is applied uniformly. I have not asked you to engage in two wrongs to make a right. I’ve asked you to apply uniform standards. I am now asking you to identify what your standards are. I’ve pointed out to you that there is NO reliable statistical information for any area of addiction. All points of view on addiction are theoretical and cannot be substantiated through verifiable studies.

I wonder how much research you’ve done in the field. So let me help you.

First, you have a link to an article by Patrick Carnes. Mr. Carnes wrote a book called Out of the Shadows, one of the first books to discuss sex addiction. He also recommends the 12-step program. Get a copy of his book and you will notice that in the beginning pages there is a disclaimer from the 12-step program stating that the program was designed only for alcohol. In other words, Mr. Carnes is recommending an alcohol program for sex addiction while the administrators of the program clearly state the program is to be used only for alcohol. So by what standard do you allow Mr. Carnes’ article to be posted but not my information?

Dr. Klein does not mention anywhere on his site that he has overcome a sex addiction. In fact here are the titles of three of his last five books:

Beyond Orgasm: Dare to be Honest About the Sex You Really Want

The Erotic Prism: New Perspectives on Sex, Love, and Desire

Beyond Intercourse: A New Eroticism for Modern Lovers

None of his books deal with overcoming sex addiction or porn addiction. So why does he meet your standards and why don’t I? Also, since you don’t know that much about sex addiction, his titles are suggestive and could easily appeal to someone who is looking for cheap thrills.

Could it be that these two candidates have the sacred Dr or Phd associated with their names? If that’s the case, please say so. Let everyone know that the only standard accepted by Wikipedia is the conventional wisdom. Then we can shift the conversation to make mapping, circa 1485.

You might also want to ask Dr. Carnes if he has overcome a sex addiction. To my knowledge he has never admitted to being sexually addicted. I overcame mine in 1982. So who’s going to relate better to a sexually addicted person, someone who’s been through it or someone who writes about it?

What is your standard of inclusion or exclusion? What research have you done to substantiate your standards? What are your qualifications to be the clearinghouse for the topic of pornography addiction? Also, please prove your qualification by providing your definition of pornography addiction.

Let me know what your standards are. Please apply them equally to everyone. Two wrongs don’t make a right. One wrong doesn’t make a right either.

Thank you,

Joe Zychik 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need qualifications in your field to be an authority on Wikipedia standards. My qualifications for deciding which links are allowed are that I am an administrator with a lot of experience with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This has nothing to do with any particular topic; I've had this same discussion with everyone from hot tub salesmen to dog breeders to Vietnamese travel agents. And it's always the same: it always comes down to claiming that your site is important for the readers. It should be fairly obvious that you are not the best judge of that. And if your site is as important as you say it is, then why would it be okay for me to remove it as long as I remove that other guy's site, too? A person dealing with psychology should be able to see how childish that is.
The standards for links are here and here. As I said, I'm not saying that guy's site is appropriate. I have no idea who he is, and I don't care that he's a Ph.D. Maybe the link should be removed (but obviously not by you, as you've made your agenda here pretty clear). If you want free advertising, you'll have to go somewhere else. If you want to drag someone else down with you simply because you didn't get your way and misery loves company, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not going to remove it, and I'm not going to let you put your link in. Maybe you can find a different administrator to sympathize with you, or who is interested enough in the subject to do the requisite research on the other external links, but it won't be me. Kafziel Talk 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"You seem to think I'm running an ad campaign. But by the same standards so is Dr. Klein." - no. Because Dr. Klein isn't adding the links over and over again himself. You, on the other hand, keep linking an encyclopedia entry to your own site. Whether its for profit or not, it is self promotional, and wikipedia is not the place for this.
'I propose that you let the users of Wikipedia decide for themselves which sources to refer to.' - We did. other editors of that article removed the link when someone else added it, and multiple editors have removed it repeatedly when you've added it. Perhaps you should accept that the users of Wikipedia did, in fact, decide which sources the article should link to, and yours is not one of them. If someone else, in the future, cites your site with good reason in the articles, I will of course let it stand. But as long as your only contribution to Wikipedia is to keep putting a link to your own site into articles, you're not contributing, and I will feel justified removing your links as often as you put them in. Thespian 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


The COI guidelines say that when a commercial username is particularly blatant, take it to AIV. I thought this one qualified, since that seems to have been the only purpose of the "user": to publicize Globe Corner Bookstore! Could you spell out your reasoning for not blocking the user indefinitely as a spam account? --Orange Mike 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I am confused. There is no bookstore on my site!!

The site is

Also no books are for sale on my site. It does offer quotes from a book I wrote, but the book is not for sale!

The site offers advice and information about sex addiction and porn addiction.

It also offers a counseling service.

Another site in this same category offers the same kind of info and service.

I'm asking for fair treatment.

Also I did not originally list my site. Someone else did. I simply am relisting a site that was listed quite a while ago by an unkown user.

Please clarify what you are talking about. I would like to get this straightened out.

Thank you,

Joe Zychik

Joe, this note is from another user to me about someone else; it is not about you. Note that it is in a different section than our discussion.
Mike, I didn't block the user name because it didn't seem all that blatant. It is the name of a company, but not a "well-known" one, and not a website address. If they do end up continuing to spam Wikipedia, I will of course block them. Kafziel Talk 18:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


How come User:Knfjinfdknkdfnk was blocked indefinitely with account creation blocked? Doesn't that mean that he can't create an account indefinitely also? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's an interesting point."
- Jules Winnfield, 1994
"I'll fix it."
- Kafziel Talk 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, whats the blocking policy for something like this: Above you disabled autoblock. But. if the username contained profanity, would you disable autoblock. Also, if you disable account creation indefinitely on a username, does it disable it indefinitely on the IP the user was using, or just the 24 that the autoblock is for? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't base it solely on profanity, but if the user had been vandalizing heavily then I would use autoblock. It's usually a judgment call, although the system default is to autoblock.
As far as I know, the account creation block is only temporary. Kafziel Talk 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess I answered my own question: From WP:BLOCK: Block anonymous users only prevents anonymous users from the target IP address from editing, but allows registered users to edit. Prevent account creation prevents new accounts from being registered from the target IP address. These options have no effect on username blocks; however, they do affect autoblocks caused through that block. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talkcontribs) 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, there are different options for IPs and registered usernames. You'll see what I mean when you get the tools (which will probably be soon, I'd imagine...) Kafziel Talk 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, what happens when an admin attempts to block an already blocked user? Does it override the first block? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's kind of like an edit conflict; the block page comes up again and says the user has already been blocked by someone else. Kafziel Talk 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maggie Q

It's all yours. I was just responding to a WP:RPP report. Thanks for the note, though. - auburnpilot talk 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. How's adminship treating you? Lots of hate mail and death threats? :) Kafziel Talk 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Chronic puppeteers, disruption for hire, range blocks, trolls, page protects, and more complains in my inbox than I ever....everything I imagined and more. Loving it. - auburnpilot talk 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hell yeah. :) Kafziel Talk 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I knew Mr. Sexual Control there was well, sort of persistant, since I've been deleting his commercial links twice a day this week, but I didn't mean to make you to get to spend half a day beating on his head. Hope it worked, and thanks for your hard work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thespian (talkcontribs) 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Ha ha, no problem. Comes with the territory. As for whether it will make a difference, only time will tell. The situation certainly has my attention now, at any rate. Kafziel Talk 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for dealing with my objections to the Dead_air_space redirect. I'm still learning this wiki business, and I think your actions were the most suitable in the situation. Cheers. Jamdonut 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Would you be able to unlock it? The war has ended, and it needs a couple more edits on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbloemeke (talkcontribs)

I'm leaving it locked for 2 days. There's no reason why it should have needed that many edits in the first place. If you have a specific change you think it needs, you may place a request on the image talk page. Kafziel Talk 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

David Spart block

It's pretty clear that David didn't actually violate 3RR (which requires reverting 4 times in 24 hours), and in any event was reverting a one-account editor, almost certainly a sockpuppet. Would you mind reviewing your block in light of those facts? Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't require reverting 4 times. I know the other editor was a sockpuppet - I'm the one who tagged and blocked him indefinitely - but David was just blocked for edit warring and the fact that the other user was bad doesn't make the edit war okay. I spent a lot of time looking at the whole situation and I stand by the block. The article history for the past week is nothing but one long edit war. Kafziel Talk 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

True, it doesn't require reverting 4 times. But when an editor is reverting an obvious sockpuppet who makes no contribution whatsoever to the Talk: page, it's hard to make a strong argument that at that point he is "edit-warring" in any real sense, and particularly that fewer than 4 reverts in 24 hours warrants a 48 hour block. Also, keep in mind that you blocked the sockpuppet a full 7 hours after you blocked David Spart; indeed, only a few minutes before I posted to your page. It's clear that the "sockpuppet" nature of the other account wasn't apparent to you when you first made the block. I urge you to end the block at this point with "time served". Jayjg (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether it was a sockpuppet is irrelevant; it was a content dispute, not vandalism. I don't see how it changes the situation at all. Sockpuppets are allowed, and the simple fact that someone is a sock or an SPA (or that they refuse to discuss) does not automatically invalidate their edits. David made the same revert 16 times in the past week, and not just with sockpuppets. He's been blocked for it before, and after a gigantic discussion on his page he still refuses to accept that he broke the rules. There's no contrition there at all. Kafziel Talk 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are tolerated in extremely limited circumstances, and they're certainly not allowed to edit-war on behalf of their masters; the fact that they do so of course automatically invalidates their edits, otherwise you would have had no grounds to block the sockpuppet - you can't have it both ways. David accepts that the 3RR rule allows for blocks even if there weren't 4 reverts in 24 hours, but states that he was unaware of that beforehand, and in any event being reverted by an obvious sockpuppet is a mitigating circumstance. I agree. Again, I strongly urge you to end the block at this point. Jayjg (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet I blocked only edited twice that day. There wasn't even a checkuser performed on it, so I have no idea who its master even is. No one else was even close to violating 3RR. If anything, I was overly bold in identifying and blocking the sock, not in blocking David. He's a repeat offender and his continual statement of "I didn't violate 3rr" tells me his editing practices will not change. He's still trying to make this out to be some big misunderstanding on my part, which it is not. Pgk has pointed that out to him as well, so I know I'm not alone in this. He can't say he's sorry and say he didn't do anything wrong. Kafziel Talk 14:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I guess I'd give him the benefit of the doubt now as to if he understands the problem. He certainly won't be able to claim differently in the future. I'm of the view that given his apparent willingness to agree not to revert or edit war that in terms of the preventative not punative aspect of blocking you should consider unblocking him, he has been blocked for about 20 hours or so which should be enough by now. --pgk 15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
He's been quite clear that he understands the issues now. If you refuse to unblock, I strongly suggest you take this to WP:AN/I for review. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you don't appear to be around and the block has now been in place for about 24 hours which would be fairly normal for even a 2nd 3RR block, I'm going to unblock. I hope this isn't stepping on your toes too much, and that it doesn't backfire on me. Thanks. --pgk 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

hey kafziel

not sure how we got off on the wrong foot, but next time i do something that you disagree with could you drop me a message before blocking? i didn't even know that i removed a message, the first i heard of it was your block. thanks a million

hasta 04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's quite a coincidence that the comment you removed just happened to be directed at you, posted by an editor you've been feuding with, and that you didn't actually add any content of your own to the talk page in question. See my second rule. I'm not going to argue the removal of your block, but I strongly suggest you be more careful in the future. Kafziel Talk 06:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cristy Thom

I unprotected this article, and I'll watch it for a while to see if the problematic editor returns. Just FYI. CMummert · talk 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15 9 April 2007 About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wandered over here

you have been awarded the Thumbs Up Award for your good work in wikipedia

from our discussion at Robert Ingersoll Aitken and enjoyed your User:Page. I am more or less withdrawing from wikipedia after (among things) loosing an election that I did not know even know was taking place, so some of your election stuff was interesting. However I am unable to just leave cold turkey, so continue checking up on my WATCH list - which is where I found you (or visa versa?). Anyway, you are likely the last reciepient of the not-so-coveted Thumbs Up Award for just doing good things at wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carptrash (talkcontribs) 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

whooooops. Carptrash 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about leaving so soon, I've been editing since, I think, 2004, but I've found a place where my opinion and original research are actually sought after and valued rather than slashed and burned. However I still feel that wikipedia is a great venture and will be hovering (angel like?) over some of my contributions while removing those that are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... too much my own. Carptrash 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were new, just that it seems really sudden for you to be leaving. I didn't realize you had been considering it for a while. So where are you headed? Kafziel Talk 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken. Many of us have been around the Hall of Wikipedia for a while, but because they are so extensive and meandering, we don't always cross paths. I'm not going anywhere in the physical sense, same chair, same desk, same computer, same pack of dogs at my feet, but a friend and I have decided to work on a project of our own that will allow me/us to use my/our imagination and humor and what we've learned in the last half century or so, as well as my library, instead of JUST using my library. I have over 1,000 articles on my WATCHLIST and always in the top 10, usually the top 5 most recent changes are Request to be an administrator and Problems for an administrator to fix - or what ever they are called. Now I am not one of the anti-administrator folks, to the contrary, most of my interactions with them have been very positive, but to me this reflects what has become a top heavy nature of wikipedia. There seem to be more folks interested in telling other folks what to do than there are editors actually doing the article writing. Everyday another dozen of my watched article get tagged with what needs to be done to them, but I see no one doing that work. I'll repeat, it's mostly not administrators telling other editors what to do, though they do crop up, it's everyone, or almost every one, or perhaps it is just they they are so LOUD and omnipresent that it seems like everyone. Something like that. Carptrash 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


I wasnt being rude. I already tagged that person as a vandal only account but the admin refused to block him because he believed it wasnt enough and then he vandalised again and I warned him again and I went to WP:AIV again to tell the admin that he vandalsied again and still he didnt do anything and then the user vandalised again and if the admins dont want to do their job then why do they appl y for it, and Pliz you should mind your language and learn how to talk to other editors in references to "There's no reason for us to take crap from you"..WP:CIVIL...--Cometstyles 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt 'copping an attitude'and I wasnt rudeand all I wanted was the Admins to do their job because in recent weeks less-deserving people have become due to who they know and then as soon as they become admin, they sort of disappear. I just returned after a pretty long wikibreak(sort of) and hoping to get into what I do best gets ruined by admins who think they know best. I have made about 290 WP:AIV since I joined in November 2006 and there are still some admins that do their job and people who deserve adminship get rejected an its gets really irritating when people vandalise pages over and over again and we cant do anything about it because we dont have the power and those who do have the power just dont bother and that isnt good enough..Enuf said..Cheers--Cometstyles 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I didnt know that she was offline and BTW if I was rude at [this] situation they I would have either written it in Italics or in Bold letters and because you dont me I wont blame you for knowing what I wrote because a bit earlier I also wrote that in regards to a sockpuppet and I do that just to get an Administrators attention and I rather not sit around and wait for the admin to do their job and see the vandal go around vandalising other articles and userpages...--Cometstyles 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My 3RR Case

If you look here and here, then you'll see evidence of an evasion of a ban. Here is a giveaway for IP Address Kingjeff 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


I can now edit. My changes have been made to FoxTrot and Ford. For the changes to Ford check HERE and go to current vehicles. I made the whole passage. Or, for FoxTrot check HERE and go to 4.2.1, Cartoonists and Comics. I did the stuff about Paulina.--LSXsoundTALK 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep moving your message to the bottom?
And you don't have to point your edits out to me; I can see them. For instance, I can see that you placed a section header where one was not needed, and now you're experimenting with formatting. Articles are not the place for that. Use the sandbox, or at the very least use the preview button before saving the page. I see another administrator undid your first change; if someone undoes your edits, chances are they did it for a good reason. Ask them. Learn what you did wrong before you do it again. Besides which, the information you added to Ford is incorrect; Ford makes hundreds of different vehicles all over the world, and that information is already at List of Ford vehicles. Kafziel Talk 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

O.k. --LSXsoundTalk 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


You deleted my info on Ford. --LSXsoundTalk

Yes, after I explained why above. But the other person I was talking about was Mark83, here. Kafziel Talk 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what does this Mark83 guy have to do with it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LSXsound (talkcontribs)

Well, when he removed the header you put in, what did you think about that? Do you know how to look at the edit history of a page and see who did what? Kafziel Talk 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I assumed you did that. --LSXsoundTalk

Re:RFA comments

Yes sorry for that, but what do you mean by "My nomination" I don't plan to get nominated for a long time anyway, not before a peer User:Tellyaddict. Has helped me go through all of my mistakes; but I really do hate it when you on purposely go on WP:RFA and just deliberately find the smallest faults and hold it against them. Sure it's critisizing; but I'm not keen on it. Retiono Virginian 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The archiving wasn't anything to do with you. I always archive my page when it reaches 20 dicussions, I don't like it too full up. Now please stop bothering me. Retiono Virginian 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I believe that.
"Your nomination" refers to the nomination you made for Cometstyles. His RfA is almost certain to fail because of what you did. Kafziel Talk 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No seriously. Read my talk page, I always archive the first 20 dicussions (As I have not reverted your other comment). Now everyone makes mistakes, and it's nice if you point them out. So how will his RFA fail? Retiono Virginian 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I struck out your oppose because you used the term "recently" and it was over a month and one week ago. I am a fine editor, and please do not bring me trouble. Retiono Virginian 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Accepting a nomination from a bad editor reflects badly on the nominee. And it wasn't my oppose you struck out; it was Chacor's. I just reverted you, and am now opposing because of it. Kafziel Talk 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a bad editor! Retiono Virginian 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Kafziel Talk 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously stop this now. I am not a bad editor, I have made over 2000 edits, I have ran over thee sucessful AFD'S, and now because I make one naive mistake you class me as a bad editor. The term "bad editor" is disparging, and is in a negative tone. This is personal attacking, this is not allowed. Stop now. I am sorry for the mistake and I will not do this again. Retiono Virginian 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're darn right it's in a negative tone. Do you have any idea how serious vote tampering is? You can be blocked for that. Kafziel Talk 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in [10]. – Chacor 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching that. I like the part about how he "framed" me. Kafziel Talk 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I never created a pure vote tamper. It's not like I've used sockpuppets to mess up the vote or anything. It was an accident, now drop it. I just don't see how the user is WP:UNCIVIL or Not assuming good faith. I make mistakes, and sure I did. I'm not perfect but please I won't do it again. Retiono Virginian 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how striking someone else's vote out, when you've said it's because you think it's "irrelevant", can be an accident. – Chacor 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Look. I never meant to cause any serious harm by doing this, and anyway. If you read his talk page properly I am the one being "framed" for being a so called "bad editor" I don't like personal attacks, and you are digging yourself a hole by doing it, now I can't be bothered to sit and argue all day over one thing. I have a WP:RFCU case running, and I'm busy stub sorting. So please. Retiono Virginian 14:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you're the one digging a hole, not us. – Chacor 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not. Because I wasn't the one who was personal attacking was I, and I'm only explaining about one tiny vote situation, and just because you have been here longer one of you have sysop status. You can bite on the inexperienced editor and boss them around whilst denting their confidence and calling them "bad" editors? I think not. Retiono Virginian 14:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reguardless of me the editor seems to have done himself out of the RFA. Due to some of the comments made on my talk page, and on the RFA. Retiono Virginian 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he appreciates you putting all the blame on him. Kafziel Talk 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not putting all the blame on him. I'm kicking myself for nominating him in the first place. Retiono Virginian 14:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Retiono Virginaian, your comments on CometSyles RfA did seem highly uncivil, maybe you could consider re-wording them and explaining this to him and working with him to help him improve. Tellyaddict 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing I said there was uncivil; everything I said was absolutely true, and I even included the diffs to prove it. If that hurt his feelings, he's certainly not ready to be an admin.
As for working with him, I'm not in the admin-coaching business. And I can't imagine why you would support someone who you admit needs help in improving his behavior. We're not talking about someone avoiding a block; we're talking about giving someone the admin tools. Kafziel Talk 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough on all sides, please, I think it would be best to let the matter drop. No good will come from this being a protracted dispute. Cheers. – Chacor 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind it. Best to keep it here rather than on the RfA. Kafziel Talk 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

==Why? ==--Cometstyles 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Kafziel you have been rude to me since the first time you mentioned that the comment I left on Wp:AIV was 'not civil' and because in trying to explain myself to others, I have made the situation worse and I asking you to go back and look through and find 1 article in which I mihgt have done vandalism or had a dispute with another user that wasnt solved and then I will apologise and not to you but to those who believed in me and dont worry I wont retire because I just realised that if I leave, there will be no Editors from Fiji or the Pacific Islands and that would be a loss....--Cometstyles 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S>>If you had been much nicer then these would have never happened and my Unblemished record on Wikipedia would have stayed..
If you had been nicer, I never would have had to leave you that warning in the first place. And if you had apologized to Nlu instead of giving me excuses, you might be on your way to becoming an admin now. So you can blame your tantrum on me if it makes you feel better, but that attitude will never get you the admin tools.
Chacor is right - your best bet now is to offer a genuine apology (no excuses!) and withdraw. It's very unlikely that it will succeed at this point, and if you conduct yourself graciously it might not be held against you next time. My first two RfAs failed for some of the same reasons yours is failing now, so I know what I'm talking about. This isn't the end of the world, unless you keep arguing about it. Kafziel Talk 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, so much for not making excuses. Kafziel Talk 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Chacor Brought out something I wrote sometime back so(which form my part was actually asking admins as to why we didnt have a minimum edit limit to avoid new users from applying and he used that to oppose me. This is the end of the world for me cause from now on I wont be a part of such drama because I had high hopes and it just got dashed. Wikipedia was my hobbie and I use to spend hours awake at night Like Iam right know(its 3.40 am in Fiji) to be part of this and now its all gone..Thank you and P.S..I ASKED A BUREAUCRAT TO CLOSE MY NOMINATION BECAUSE I NO LONGER HAVE FAITH IN ADMINS(and using these caps letters is being rude)...--Cometstyles 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't expect people to forget the things you say after just a few weeks. Most people do a lot of research before they make their decision to support or oppose an RfA, so if you said something rude or made a mistake they will find it. That is why I told you not to give excuses, like blaming your failure on a "rude admin" instead of taking responsibility for what you did. If you ever try for RfA again, people will see what you said there. The link to that statement is in the closing bureaucrat's edit summary forever, and everyone will see you whining and complaining. After all this, you will probably have to wait a long time before you try again.
I am very strict, but I do not hold a grudge. If you can own up to what you did (no more excuses!) and change your behavior, I would not have a problem supporting you in the future. Kafziel Talk 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I did nothing wrong and I told you I would apologise to user:Nlu when she got back but no you had to make a mountain out of a molehill and there has been many times when people have misunderstood me(lookup>>Talk:Chiefs (Super rugby franchise)) and Talk:Rugby union but that doesnt imply that Iam rude and all I do is try to Explain to them in laymans term and if they dont understand or try to understand then it isnt my problem. You told me [11] " I would have blocked him whether you said that or not, and I wouldn't have had to waste all this time going back and forth with you when I could be blocking even more vandals at AIV right now." so I didnt reply after that because I didnt want to waste your time...--Cometstyles 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There's your problem right there: you say you did nothing wrong, then you say you would have apologized. So obviously you know you did something wrong, if you were going to apologize. You say people misunderstand you - well, the same goes for me. I use plain language to explain things to people (like asking them not to give us crap), and sometimes they get upset (like you did). What you should have done there was say "Okay, I won't do that anymore" and that would have been the end of it. I blocked the vandal. I blocked several other vandals for you, too. I am not out to get you. I'm trying to help you here, but you're not listening. You're arguing and blaming everyone else but yourself, and that is why your RfA failed. Kafziel Talk 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Jesus..Is your English as poor as mine...I was going to apologise to her for no reason and just to end your continous bickering. I did nothing wrong and if people have a hard time understanding English, then they shouldnt be here. What "pissed" me off was your rudness and you didnt even apologise for using such a vulgar word(*crap). If a user joins wikipedia with that name he gets banned same time but if he uses the name "Just do your job".do you think he will get because it doesnt mean anything. I have a habit of writing an essay in trying to explain to people about what is right and what isnt but all I have to say is that instead of being rude, if you would have told me nicely about what I "supposedly" did wrong..then I definetly would have apologised to her and it wouldnt had reach at the stage it is now and of all people its you who owes me an apology for 'swearing' at me and also for being rude. Admins job is to help other Editors and not criticise them ..Cheers..--Cometstyles 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You make an interesting point. Perhaps since you're not a native English speaker, you don't realize what you did wrong. You can't apologize for no reason; that is not an apology. And in the context in which I used it (a noun, not a verb), "crap" is very tame. It's not referring to feces, it's referring to aggravation. See the Wiktionary entry: "excrement" is the last meaning of that word. My mother uses that word, and she's a saint. It's similar to agita. I was saying that we put up with enough insults and arguments from the people we block, and we don't need more of it from the people we're trying to help (you).
As for what my job is, I did help you - who blocked the vandal? I did.
The argument is moot at this point. Your RfA failed, so whining about it here isn't going to help you now. I tried to help, but evidently you don't want it. So just keep on doing what you're doing, and we'll see how things look at your next RfA. Kafziel Talk 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Did you archive my page? --LSXsound 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No... your page hasn't been archived by anyone. Kafziel Talk 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A how to problem

Hello to Kafziel, Since you were the first from Wikipedia to contact me, I thought I would ask you a "how to". Problem: I just created a new page and I didn't notice that I did't caps the person's last name. Now, after a lot of searching, I can't find out how to correct this.

The page is Dave Somerville, and I didn't caps his last name. Can you help me, or just fix it. Either way is fine.

Regards, Min7th

Hey, nice to see you!
All you have to do is click the "move" button at the top of the page. Then put the correct title. That will move the page history and the contents to the correct location. I'll do it for you. Sometimes it's more complicated than that, especially if there's already an article located at the spot you want to move yours to. In that case you need an administrator to make the move, but you can always feel free to drop me a line and I'll do it. Kafziel Talk 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you already did it, and that's cool. Many thanks for the help.min7th 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Any time! Kafziel Talk 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I've never seen that template in use before! Heck, one reason I've never even thought of seeking the mop and bucket was that some folks feel my edits are too mean to noobs and vandals. That one's pretty darned blunt (not but what the most recent recipient deserved it). --Orange Mike 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, I've blocked them so they're going to be pissed at me either way. I get hate mail even when I use boring {{test7}} templates, so I might as well try to inject a little humor into it. It actually started as a parody of Phaedriel's block notice. Kafziel Talk 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Saw that one too. Made for a good read/laugh. Besides if the guy earned a block, what difference does it make? Ar-wiki 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


On the bacteria page it might have an inappropriate edit. --LSXsoundTALK


Go to bacteria and look at the next to last comment, please. --LSXsoundREPLY

Yes, that's vandalism. Leafyplant fixed it here, a minute after it was posted. The last edit is the only one that shows up in the article, but the edit summaries are usually visible in the page history forever. Kafziel Talk 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I got a threat to put my name or initials somewhere on Wikipedia. So far suspected pages are: Bacteria, Invertebrates, Rabies, etc. If you wouldn't mind checking for names or initials, I'll check, too, and alert you if I find it. --LSXsoundTALK

What are you talking about? Kafziel Talk 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And, about my page being archived, see for yourself HERE, I DID NOT do that. --LSXsoundTALK

What are you talking about? Kafziel Talk 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Whether or not you did it, can you send me some copy/paste things to my TALK PAGE so I can make archive folders? --LSXsoundTALK

What are you talking about? Kafziel Talk 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. --LSXsound 01:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


I have been trying to add my link, to the Smoking Ban Wiki for the past week, and someone keeps deleting it!

My company, Smoking Lobby, was the FIRST pro smoker website to start a site on the internet in 1999, before FORCES even came online. We are the standard in Smoking Ban discussions, because we do not censor anyone - all smokers and non-smokers are welcome. I have been interviewed in CBS marketwatch, AP and the Washington Post (read our Press Release section), because Smoking Lobby is the only outlet for everyone to have a voice discussing this issue.

Now you tell me I'm adding a SPAM link to the page?!?!?! Smoking Lobby has been fighting spam for almost a decade now, fending off hack attempts by the anti-smoking groups and others.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokinglobby (talkcontribs)

Um, yeah - you just answered your own question several times over: "my link", "my company", "we are the standard", etc. We don't allow self-promotion. See this guideline and this policy on why. If you want to advertise on the Internet, you're going to need to pay for it like everyone else. Wikipedia isn't a free billboard. Kafziel Talk 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignored report

Hi, I made a 3RR report here. I was just wondering why it was the only report ignored on the page.

I've contacted you because you were the last active admin on the page. Thanks, John Smith's 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't really say, since it was posted yesterday. Maybe it was just an oversight.
To be honest, though, you should probably be happy I didn't respond to it, because I probably would have blocked both of you for edit warring. (I'm a bastard that way.) At any rate, the article was protected by Deskana so the situation should be somewhat under control. Kafziel Talk 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I was just curious. If you could write "no action" or some such on the report I would appreciate it. Though if I were to be blocked as well, I think it should have extended to everyone that reverted 3 times. Then we all might learn to discuss things. John Smith's 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Shield

I'm thinking of removing some of the minor characters on The Shield, since they exist of List of The Shield characters. I only want to keep the central characters (strike team, detectives, captain) to minimize the listy aspect of the page. What do you think? MahangaTalk 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as they exist elsewhere, have at it! That page could use a good spring cleaning. Kafziel Talk 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Check Cilium.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loser14 (talkcontribs)

Not sure what you mean. Kafziel Talk 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Awesome work! I was laughing out loud... RJASE1 Talk 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! I plan on including a link to it in my spam warnings. :) Kafziel Talk 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - that made me seriously happy. While it tracks perfectly to recent interactions with Mr. Sexual Control, I know I can use this all over the place. Next time I'm in your area (2-3 times a year) I should buy you a drink. - Thespian 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bravo on the essay. I really enjoyed it! -Vritti 05:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

South America

Would you please help in South America article? Corticopia has started a new revert war. I won't revert him again, and due to the fact that you warned him about reverting, I'm just letting you know. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I started nothing: you did when you decided to imbalance the introduction of the article with notions uncommon and (in this instance) rather unsourced in English. The current version is a conciliation, with germane details in the Geography section where they belong. As well, another editor has also commented on that talk page about this. Demonstrate that the information deserves mention as you insist upon ... which you haven't yet done. I also won't revert again, but your attitude seems whiny. Corticopia 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, guys - with no input from me whatsoever, you both agreed to stop reverting. So why couldn't you have agreed to do that after the first time? Or even before the first time? I don't like "cool-down" blocks, but the two of you seem to follow each other around, just looking for trouble, and I'm not sure what other options I have. Sometimes the only way to get some perspective is to take a month off. So do me favor: you both know where you're likely to run into each other, so check the page history before making any changes. If you see that the other guy was just there, leave a note and don't change anything. Talk about it. Believe me, Wikipedia is not going to fall apart because the South America article says it's a sub-continent. By the same token, if a note is left on the article talk page (or your talk page), answer it. If you ignore it, you don't have a leg to stand on when somebody changes your work.
In this case, there is already a note about the "sub-continent" thing on the talk page. Alex, you never responded to it, so you don't really have a right to be upset when it gets removed. Your source is in Spanish and that's not acceptable. Besides: if this is really just a linguistic argument that doesn't even translate into English, then is it really worth your time?
Cort, you came pretty close here but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But seriously, if you guys can't stop antagonizing each other, I'm out of options. Kafziel Talk 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
NOW I see that comment. I did't see it before. However, coincidently I DID what the editor Jim Douglas said in his comment (April 1), just go to the article in Spanish and look at the history.
  • 08:28 1 abr 2007 AlexCovarrubias (Discusión | contribuciones) m (Méx (Noreamérica), Antillas (Centroamérica). Sudamérica, alt también un continente.)
Now, I see what was wrong with my edit in the English article. It should note that South America is a subcontinent in other models/languages, just as I did in the Spanish article. But please, see the article history in Spanish. ¬¬ AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It already does say that, right in the very first sentence of the geography section. Kafziel Talk 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This editor says he won't revert, and he just did -- again! And despite the talk page, lack of consensus, and your comments. Need I say more? Well, I will be back later. Corticopia 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Kafziel, it says that (you're looking at the Corticopia version). It used to be in the first paragraph. I have edited it again and added the notion that the subcontinent thing, is in non English-speaking countries, where the single American continent model is used. Kinda the same is said in the Spanish article (the one I edited weeks ago). Cya. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And for some time previously, this was noted in the Geography section ... until you decided otherwise. Anyhow, it will be changed back until you can demonstrate why it shouldn't be and garner a consensus. ...Corticopia 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Alex has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, and I have protected the article until discussion can resume after his return. Until then, everybody relax. Kafziel Talk 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Ok, my friend, I’m asking another favor. I recently up loaded the picture file, Davesomerville.jpg‎. I got an auto message it didn’t have License tagging. Admittedly, I simply don’t understand all the legal-babble guidelines. The fact is, I have permission to use the file from the owner of the file, that being Dave Somerville. Can you help, and put the picture on the Dave Somerville page?

You have my eternal appreciation.

min7th 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of a complicated issue. The background is a very long story, but as of late last year, Wikipedia only allows free use photos of celebrities. In other words, for a photo to be in a biography, it has to be okay for anyone to copy that photo, alter it however they want, or use it for any purpose (including on other websites, in books, etc). Attribution can be required, but that's about the extent of it. So to put a photo in an article is basically to give up all control and ownership of it. That can be a lot to ask, which is why a lot of articles on celebrities don't have pictures (and many of the ones that do are just amateur snapshots).
If you have permission to irrevocably release the rights to this photo, you can add {{Attribution}} or {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} to the photo's description section, which will make it usable here. (By the way, if you are Dave Somerville, there are other options.)
I know it's complicated, so if you're still confused just let me know. I'm here to help. Kafziel Talk 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's clear enough. No, I'm not Dave. I think I'll just forget about it for a while until I contact him. Can I assume if the photo is not connected to any page, its OK to leave it there?

Thanks again for the help and quick response.

min7th 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it for now so the bots don't keep leaving messages on your talk page, but I can restore it when you are ready. Kafziel Talk 00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for excellent writting on spam

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Great essay on WP:GRIEF, as someone who deals with counterspam often, that is well written! Congrats! —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding block of Netscott

Hi, I am responding to an unblock request from Netscott. Looking at the history for the page it seems that Netscott made three edits that day if you count consecutive edits as one as WP:3RR says is often done. The report on the 3RR noticeboard if read on it's own would lead me to the conclusion it was a technical violation of 3RR, when in fact it was not a technical violation, though very possibly one in spirit.

My question to you is, did you make that block under the impression that Netscott has violated the letter of the 3RR rule, or did you do it for his violation of the spirit of the rule? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, good call. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That was the most unpleasant thing I've had to do so far as an admin. Kafziel Talk 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a tough job. Remember, no matter how correct you are, people are still going contest your actions. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, per HighInBC. I don't mean to second-guess your decision, but with the page protected a block might be unnecessary. Maybe Netscott could be unblocked so he can continue his work on other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. As Netscott himself already pointed out in the 3RR discussion, the two of them have not just been edit warring on this page. Kafziel Talk 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are more familiar with the details than I am, so I'll leave it to your judgment. Best, Tom Harrison Talk 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Never an easy call to make, and I commend your fortitude. However, it seems to me that two of the edits, while odd, are not by any means reverts. While he may have reverted elsewhere, or at other times (I'm seeing some evidence of that about 6 days before the block) it doesn't appear that he did so on this occasion and at this article. I'd be concerned that a future complainant (say 6 months down the track) would use as justification that he was blocked for 3RR here when it appears the other party was equally guilty and can continue without any stain on the record. I would also note that Netscott is not an administrator, so the "higher bar" comments made on the page (by another user, and which I acknowledge you probably didn't take into account anyway) don't seem to stick. Orderinchaos 05:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you help, please?

Hi Kafziel, my article, Russia and Saddam WMD allegations just has been marked by a user for deletion as a way to force its merging with another article. I think there is a violation of certain commonly accepted WP practices here. Someone suggested to merge this article with other articles just a day ago. This is fine. We started discussing this question at the talk page. I suggested to try some improvements and then decide about merging. So, why not to allow me to improve this article first, and then decide? What would happen if everyone started marking articles for deletion instead of discussing their merging and working under their improvement first? Could you take a look and tell: is not it a kind of violation? Thank you.Biophys 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation of any policy. The AfD seems to be made in good faith, with a reasonable argument. If nobody agrees that it should be deleted, the discussion might be closed early. On the other hand, a lot of people might think that it should be deleted or merged. Either way, AfD will encourage input from a lot of other editors. Don't worry about it! Kafziel Talk 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree. Actually, AfD discussions help to improve articles and also learn something.Biophys 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope it is not the case of approaching an administrator who would decide on whether the article would be deleted? Would Biophys mind keeping distance from deciding admins in order to produce more objectivity? Biophys, you approach every admin who could affect you interests. How is it called commonly? Vlad fedorov 04:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I will not be the one to decide whether to keep or delete that article. Kafziel Talk 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Two words: pure genius! And much respect to a fellow angel-name-stealer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. If you're the cousin of Jesus could you get him to verify a few facts on his entry?

Pure gold :) Orderinchaos 01:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I just laughed my ass off! (It's around here on the floor somewhere...) Brilliant! Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your message and being reasonable. However I have to admit that I was raising all my concerns in the talk page but Gerash refused to provide the translations and separate the references so we can see who is claiming what, and grouped them together for his benefit. That's the only "change" he did. I guess it's never easy with the articles with little interest so I will follow your advise and seek third party opinion. Regards, --Rayis 14:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

read one more time

User:Rayis reported by User:Gerash77 (Result:)

Rooz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rayis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

The part about Rooz being "funded by Hivos", and critics argument "it works in the interest of that nation, and does not represent factual accuracy of the events" was reverted four times as seen.--Gerash77 12:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your decision on 3RR and an interesting 3RR warning left on my talk page, I have noticed that Rayis has "retaliated" my comments and my report, contrary to the guidelines of Wikipedia. It is clearly obvious that the terms "funded by Hivos", and "it works in the interest of that nation, and does not represent factual accuracy of the events" was reverted four times. Please take appropriate action. Thank you.--Gerash77 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected, so you needn't worry about any more reverts. We block people to prevent disruptive behavior, not to punish them. Protecting the article has settled the edit war; now it's up to you to discuss the changes you want to make. Kafziel Talk 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Then would it be possible to block both of us for a few days to teach us a lesson? Thanks.--Gerash77 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What would that solve? The issue would still be there when you got back, and neither of you would have been able to discuss it.
Use the article talk page to work out your dispute, or seek mediation. Kafziel Talk 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I am sure you read that surprising message above, but whats next is please read what he said next on the article's talk page [13], what constructive comment! the guy is out to get me blocked! He has previously been blocked for stalking [14]. What am I supposed to do? It's hard to WP:AGF when the user is not here to improve articles --Rayis 14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw this listed under 3RR and I feel obliged to point out that User:Rayis has displayed disruptive behaviour on serveal occasions. Recently I had a confrontation with him due to uncivil behaviour, borderline NPAs and most importantly, removal of other people's edits from an article's Talk page. I tried to bring this matter to admin attention but it was not taken very seriously [15]. This is not about Rayis versus me or any editor whatsoever, it's about Rayis being a disruptive editor due to his poor understanding of WP:POLICY. I brought this up in hopes that he'd receive an official warning, understand his mistakes and ameliorate himself as a wikipedian. I was at the point of filing an RfC myself but I dropped the subject at EL_C's request. Miskin 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have learned the only way to deal with Rayis is with a sense of humor, otherwise you will go nuts after a few encounters with this editor! So, give it a try--Gerash77 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That is another personal attack --Rayis 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Miskin, I'm not sure what business you have here aside from wikistalking, but whatever previous issues you may have had with Rayis are not a factor here. My decisions are based on current situation, not past disputes. Please don't instigate. Kafziel Talk 14:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Further uncivil message by Gerash on my talk [16] --Rayis 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain why this is a personal attack? You claimed on 3RR that you don't speak Persian and that is why you asked for translation (as opposed to supression of well sourced information). So logically having encounters with you previously, and seeing your own talk page, I had certain assumptions. Note that calling you lucky is not an attack either. if it was any other admin beside this guy, he/she would have blocked you for your clear violation, and further nonsensical "counter-attack" on the 3RR. --Gerash77 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Gerash, please be WP:Civil. I didn't claim I don't speak Persian, but I did ask you to provide translations - this is for record and because this is an English Wikipedia. I understand Persian, I never claimed I have not, I just didn't get the same conclusions from the text as you did, so I asked you to provide the translations, furthermore if any non-Persian users could read and give their opinions, as the admin who also edited the article claimed he doesn't know Farsi and he would like it to be verified. [17] [18]. Calling me lucky is not a personal attack, however you have focused all your attention in to getting me blocked and you asked for it here and you also announced it above. This is unjust and shows that you have little interest in improving the article, especially as you had little interest in answering to my problems with the sources and your conclusions from them and instead reverted to your own version using popup tools. Later, you came here and trolled further after a wikistalker had came here posting other accusations. This is not civil my friend, your actions are not what one would expect from an honest contributer to this project --Rayis 15:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had wanted to get back at Rayis for past disputes, then I would have joined the content dispute at Gerash77's side, and that would have been a clear case of wikistalking. However this was none of my concern, my business here is wikipedia. I'm of the opinion that Rayis is a disruptive editor who thinks that he can be uncivil, vandalise Talk pages violate NPA and get away with it. This has nothing to do with an edit-dispute by the way, I've never had one with Rayis. I'm not aware of a hidden policy stating that only admins are allowed to comment on the behaviour of editors without being accused for wikistalking, hence as long as I see Rayis' name on my watchlist, be it 3RR, or anything concerned to disruptive behaviour, I'll be chipping in my opinion. If for no good reason, because when I tried to resolve this with Rayis on a personal level, he mocked at me and forbade me to leave messages in his Talk page.[19][20] Miskin 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


You got mail --Rayis 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, how does an email may be part of such a discussion? Is there something you'd like to hide? That's just ridiculous, shows that you don't understand what wikipedia is about, i.e. my point since the beginning. Thanks for proving how right I am to be concerned about your behaviour. Miskin 16:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Take it somewhere else. That email was sent over an hour ago, so it should be obvious that nothing came of it. Kafziel Talk 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardized templates

Please don't use standardized templates to leave messages for established users--VectorPotentialTalk 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not standardized. It's my own special recipe. Kafziel Talk 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough--VectorPotentialTalk 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User Categories

One of your user categories may be deleted. Maybe you'd like to express your opinion Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_.E2.99.A5_NY. SchmuckyTheCat 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, but I already defended it the last time. (I'd link to the old one, but the new discussion has the exact same name so I guess the old one is just lost to history.) Anyway, if it's going to be so contentious, there doesn't seem to be much reason to keep it around. Just a user category, after all. Kafziel Talk 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal blocking

[21] It's a school account, full of idiot children who like to vandalize. What possible difference can it make that there have been "no warnings in months"? What conceivable purpose does it serve to add yet another "warning" to the Talk page of such an account? Sheesh. RedSpruce 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a school account, chances are dozens (if not hundreds) of different kids edit Wikipedia from that IP address. There's no reason to suppose that it's the same kids, so there's no reason to suppose that they've seen any of the previous warnings. When someone leaves a message for you, the "you have new messages" box only stays up until you look at your talk page. So once someone looks at it - even if it wasn't the person for whom the message was intended - the box is gone and the warning won't be seen. A lot of anonymous users don't even know they have a talk page, let alone know to check it for warnings.
That's always a problem, even if the warning was just issued a few moments earlier, but at least then we know that the vandal is currently at work and might have seen the message. If it's not recent, though, there's almost no chance at all that they saw any of the warnings. So just keep an eye on their contributions and warn them when they vandalize; if the vandalism keeps up, then you can report them again. Kafziel Talk 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Aw, piffle. A few problems with your reasoning here. 1) Since it's known to be a multi-user IP, the chances are small that a particular user will see the warning that's given in response to his particular vandalism--whether that warning was issued 6 months ago or 6 minutes ago. 2) It's a school account, so the chances are likewise small that a student seeing the warning will give the tiniest particle of a hoot about it. 2.5) Indeed, seeing a warning (posted because of vandalism by student 'A') might well inspire student 'B' to commit more vandalism. Personally, I'd take the fact that it's a school with a "tradition" of vandalizing as sufficient reason to block them until such time as it can be reliably determined that there are no more children in the world. But perhaps I'm harsh. RedSpruce 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't my reasoning. It's the way things are. Believe me, you're not the first person to bring this up; it's been discussed to death here. Also believe that I'm one of the harshest admins on Wikipedia, and regularly issue school blocks of a month or more. But there's no point in issuing blocks that are just going to be appealed and overturned a few minutes later.
As for your points: 1) As I said, if the warnings are recent and the vandalism is current then all we can do is just hope they had sufficient warning and block them. I don't have a problem with that. 2) Actually, a warning will often stop the misbehavior immediately. Could be because the kid didn't realize anyone was watching, or it could be that the warning happened to get the attention of the teacher. 2.5) Fine by me; give them enough rope to hang themselves, and I'll be happy to pull the lever.
Blocks aren't used as a punishment. They're used to stop disruption when all else fails. We don't block people if they haven't vandalized recently, we don't block them if we think they probably will vandalize soon, and we don't ambush them with blocks without giving them a chance to stop. That's the community's decision, not mine. Kafziel Talk 19:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
An interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I especially liked the comment:
"Maybe the warning should be rephrased to 'This is your final warning. If you continue to vandalize you will be blocked unless you wait a few hours in which case you will get another final warning.' " :-)
I don't know the exact letter of the law for admin.s on this issue, or the degree to which most admin.s feel obliged to follow the exact letter of the law, but it seems to me that you may be over-estimating the degree to which one or both of these tie your hands. One admin, at least, seems to feel less constrained. Anyway, thanks for patiently discussing this with me, and my apologies for my original uncivil section heading. RedSpruce 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't give you an example off the top of my head, but my block log is available and you will find a number of times where I've blocked someone only to have it overturned a short time later because another admin felt I was too harsh. It's not estimation, it's experience, and Netsnipe has had the same thing happen. Anyway, I understand your frustration: I was there once myself. Kafziel Talk 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My AIV report

Sockpuppetry is obvious. Please take a look at their contribs. They are all busy blanking particular content and have all taken birth in the last few hours. One of them was warned for 3RR and immediately a new account appeared. And every new account reverts once or twice and then another account appears. After a couple of accounts they even tried claiming a consensus on the talk page. They have even blanked content on the talk page. Its obvious socking. Sarvagnya 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More even as we speak - Dharmatma (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) Sarvagnya 18:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teufelhunden.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Teufelhunden.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it. Kafziel Talk 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16 16 April 2007 About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag" News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your indef block template..

.. is perhaps the best thing I've ever seen. You don't mind if I crib that, right? A Traintalk 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, go for it! It's not just for indef blocks (although that's mostly what I use it for); you can input whatever time span you like. Kafziel Talk 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Kaf. - A Traintalk 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tehcir Law

I feel that my reverts [[22]] were using the same logic as what admin Khoikhoi was reverting : [23], are you saying he was also doing wrong? --Rayis 22:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He did it once. A week ago. Not exactly edit warring. Kafziel Talk 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm that's not true actually, I have seen him reverting very similar edits across a range of articles and I believed that he reverted because it is vandalism/POV pushing, which is why I took it on to do the same, not because I have or Khoikhoi has any personal benefit out of it. --Rayis 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What's "not true actually"? He has only reverted that article once.
POV pushing is not vandalism. See the "NPOV violations" section here. Kafziel Talk 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I said, it is not true that he has only reverted that sort of edit once, (maybe only once at that article), but I am too tired to find any refs for you. But sure, whatever I will stay out of it. Hakol iyeh besedar. --Rayis 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR is per article. It doesn't count if they're spread across several articles (although you could still be blocked for disruption even if you spread it out). You reverted numerous times on the same article, which is not allowed. Kafziel Talk 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, my bad --Rayis 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Altitude Software entry


This posting has been deleted numerous times as I am learning of the requirements necessary. The company has large notability and can be easily proved through international articles in top-tier publications. Likewise, all copyright information for the logo can be provided too. This was done last time I tried to post, yet the entry was still deleted. Please help -- jacobholder 17:20, 19 April 2007

This has nothing to do with copyright information or notability. The wording of the article makes it obvious that there is a conflict of interest here. Don't use advertising language describing how great the company is; if an article would require substantial rewriting to make it encyclopedic, it will be deleted. And consider this: if it was really notable, wouldn't someone else write an article about it?
Also, if an article is deleted, you shouldn't re-create it. Instead, you can file a deletion review request. Kafziel Talk 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

South America

I did anwered his comments. The intro wrongly implied South America is sometimes considered a sub-continent in English. So the intro was changed, and it read SA is a sub-continent in "other non-English speaking countries where the single American continent model is taught". AlexCovarrubias Flag of Mexico.png Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The last time you answered a comment on the talk page was 12 April. Corticopia has tried twice since then to engage you in conversation, with no replies from you. You don't have to convince me about your position - I don't care. All I care about is edit warring, and not having to block you again. Talk on the talk page, to him, not me. Talk it out completely before you revert again. Kafziel Talk 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Kafziel/archive3 and thank you for your support on my recent request for adminship. Unfortunately, the request failed, however I aim to improve the concerns that were brought up and hopefully bring myself up to the standards of admin. Once again, I thank you for your support. --KzTalkContribs 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


If you have time, please comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Netscott. >Radiant< 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for helping dealing with User:Mysteryman90. As you know the user ignored any policies, and attacked me on my talk page multiple times. So yeah, thanks for helping deal with this problem user. They ignored everything I said, as nice as I was, and went on to earn themselves an indefinite block which has been denied no less than three times! Thanks again for supporting me in my dealings with problem editors. Jsc83 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. If you see him using any other obvious sockpuppets or any further disruption, let me know. Kafziel Talk 19:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment protection

Since you've taken on the thankless task of intervening in the Lewis Libby, Temple thingy, would you consider looking over the comments of the editor on his talk page (usually archived immediately after any comment), some of the recent Libby talk pages, and my talk page? I feel that I am being harassed by this user (not for the first time). If you agree, could you set him straight about this kind of behavior? I can go into more specifics if you need me to. Thanks. Notmyrealname 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, his current talk page has a very nasty diatribe against me (this after he made several similar posts to my talk page) that says "I think the person has some kind of psychological fixation on focusing on contributors instead of on content and then turning it around. He/she needs help. --NYScholar 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)" User talk: NYScholar. This is really beyond the pale. Notmyrealname 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you start a request for comment on the situation. Kafziel Talk 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We've already had two on the whole Jewish thing. The first one had no comments. The last one had several comments, all against NYScholar's position. He claimed it was hijacked or something. I've also brought it up several times on the WP:BLPN, but it hasn't helped much. Notmyrealname 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Perhaps it's time to step it up to the arbcom. Kafziel Talk 14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been asking lots of editors for something like this for a while, but without much luck. I'd just like to have this simple point settled one way or the other so that we can all move on. Can't believe I've wasted so much time on it already, but I don't like bullies. Notmyrealname 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I requested arbitration. Not sure if I was supposed to list you as a party or not. [24]. Notmyrealname 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Kafziel. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was really surprised to see it didn't work out for you. But I'm sure your next one will go better, so hang in there and I'll be happy to support you again. Kafziel Talk 15:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Red Croat

is obviously User:CroDome. Just look his contributions. --BokicaK 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17 23 April 2007 About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tnx for stepping in on IPN

It's nice to know somebody cares :) But consider this: it's a single user breaking 3RR and destabilizing the artice; wouldn't dealing with that single disruptive user whose actions led you to protecting this article be a better solution than preventing all other editors from improving this article?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bit busy IRL at the moment but I hope to have more time to take a better look at the situation in a little while. Protecting the article was the simplest thing to do without further research. In another hour or two I may be able to sort through the 3RR report. In the meantime, maybe someone else can deal with it and unprotect the page as they see fit. Kafziel Talk 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More time now? With exception of that user, ther are no revert warriors who would warrant protecting that article from their actions...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long. For what it's worth, I didn't realize there was a 3RR report when I protected the article; I've been dealing with some related shenanigans on other articles the past few days and just happened upon that edit war. Anyway, I've unprotected the article and made a note at 3RR about it. I'm not sure why nobody else did anything with it. Kafziel Talk 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I am not sure neither; if I were to guess it is that 3RR reviewers just prefer not to be bothered reading the extra comments. There should be a provision forbidding turning a 3RR report into a discussion, like on ArbCom. If a 9RR goes unpunished it will really damage the system, showing that with a friend willing to write long if irrelevant posts there one can try to game the system :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


You just step in something that you don't really understand. That page "Transnistria" is edited by professional staff. I can't really tell you exactly who is (not on this page) but you can guess. This make that page "propagenda". I don't have any conections with Transnitria but I don't accept lies. So on that page, who don't accept they POV, are blocked. BTW, tehnically, by law, he did not broke any law. I by myself can't keep the beet with professional editors. I have a real life here in US, who keep me busy. I also expect a block for me ( sure, for no reason). Thanks for reading.Catarcostica 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to understand the issue to enforce 3RR. And I didn't block him; I just declined to unblock him. Besides - his block expired several days ago, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.
It doesn't matter what the issue is or whether you are right or wrong. If you edit war, you get blocked. Kafziel Talk 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC) read this!....briefwater

Not sure what that's supposed to mean to me. But you're blocked now, so I guess it will always be a mystery. Kafziel Talk 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi I´m from the german wikipedia, and therefore i´m not so familiar with your vandalism-rules. what else than vandalism are Signaleers reverts? --GrummelJS 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, and the beginning of an edit war between the two of you. You don't like his picture, but his stubbornness is not vandalism. At this point, you are just as wrong as he is. This is something that should be discussed on talk pages rather than reverted in the article. Is there a reason that both pictures can't be included in the article? Why does one have to replace the other? Kafziel Talk 13:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be very glad if you could mediate. anyway this is the en:wp and i´m not so interested in contents here, because i have enough to do in the german wikipedia. but at corresponding articles in both languages i get the new pictures in here too. now comes Signaleer and replaces an image with one on which you can't even recognize the peoples because of its darkness. you understand my problem? its not that his image should be reverted because i want "my picture" to be used but that the image he added is qualitative bad. that was included in my edit-comments but is not considered by Signaleer. So that was the last energy i spent at this silly problem. cause its your wp, not mine ;) --GrummelJS 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The photo is clearer when you look at it at full-size. Perhaps it could be photoshopped to be brighter? This is what I mean about discussing the problems on the talk page, rather than just leaving insults to each other in edit summaries. I don't contribute very much at wp:de but I am pretty sure insults and edit wars are frowned upon there as well. Kafziel Talk 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A request regarding sock tagging

Hello Kafziel. I noticed you tagged some users as sock puppets or puppeteers. To simplify maintenance for other users[1], please consider:

  • ...not substituting sock templates; since these are theoretically placed forever, it is much easier to maintain a standard system if we do not need to manually update pages that have substituted templates.
  • ...not using an indefinitely blocked user template on blocked sock pages; this places them into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, whence they must be removed thereafter since they are permanent. Instead, please use the block parameters standardized as part of the sock templates themselves:

Thanks. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 20:29:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Kafziel Talk 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Gravitron and The 400 Blows

Obviously there was a machine operating on an identical principle in the film if the Gravitron as invented in 1983. That may have been when whatever modification the brand-name item was patented. My father, born in the 1940s, remembers riding one when he was a kid. The film depicts Antoine, Truffaut, and the extras standing by the walls of a circular spinning device which pins them to a wall with centrifugal force, Antoine spinning all around on the wall. There is no way this ride is a carousel. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved The 400 Blows info to Rotor and noted and linked Gravitron to Rotor. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean carousel as in the kind with horses, just in the general sense of a ride that spins around. I've never heard of the Rotor, but now that you point me there it does seem like the most likely candidate. Thanks for clearing that up - nice job! Kafziel Talk 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR policy question

Dear Kafziel, if adding totallydisputed tag counts to 3RR? Reverts refer only to the article content? Piotrus says it counts, but I have seen a lot of such addition. Thanking you in advance. Vlad fedorov 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The only exception to 3RR is reverting vandalism. Repeatedly placing a tag without discussion can still breach 3RR. Kafziel Talk 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, of course, when I discuss and point out why the tag is placed on a talk page in discussion, then is reintroduction of such tag ok? I also mean situations where some users delete this tag without justification? Vlad fedorov 03:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarifictation may be needed: discussing on article's talk does not absolve the user from 3RR: if he breaks 3RR, he gets punished, no matter how many kb of arguments he posted on talk. Right?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, technically, if he can demonstrate (on the talk page) that the tag was placed in good faith, then the removal of the tag without discussion would be vandalism. But I don't want to encourage wikilawyering either way. An edit war is an edit war as far as I'm concerned. Kafziel Talk 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Or sorry, I've got a response already. So deletion of tag without discourse is vandalism!!! Fine. Piotrus I expect you to explain on a talk page of IPN why you have removed tags 2 times. I don't see your explanations on a talk page. Vlad fedorov 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD question

Thank you for your previous good advice! User cslot nominated Operation Sarindar for deletion second time. This time, I think he definitely violated official WP policy. The policy say: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution.". See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. We had a discussion with User cslot at the artice talk page and he agreed to follow normal dispute resolution process in talk with administrator. Cslot said: "you are quite right that everyone should seek DR on that article." - see [25]. But instead of discussion, he nominated this article for deletion second time. Should this article be "speedy kept" due to this? Biophys 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about dispute resolution between Biophys and csloat. Biophys just reverts everything and renames article without any discussion. Vlad fedorov 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)