User talk:Kafziel

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 2 days days are automatically archived to User talk:Kafziel/archive4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

kafziel

do you can send me to my mail (scor19pion@gmail.com) a information, who was a Kafziel and what he do, his biograthy. thank you very much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.73.161.129 (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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehehehe, thanks for the beer! AlexCov ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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,

SexualControl.com 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 75.14.216.112 (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 75.14.216.112 (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 75.14.216.112 (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

75.14.216.112 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)

User:Globecorner

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)

Globecorner,

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

The site is http://sexualcontrol.com

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)

User:Knfjinfdknkdfnk

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Learning

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)

Image:SailorMoonEpisode91.jpg

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 (talk • contribs)

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 71.112.7.212 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

WP:AIV

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 81.211.198.6. Kingjeff 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LSXsound

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)

Ford

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 (talk • contribs)

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 [1]. – 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 [2] " 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 banned..no 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)

Werdnabot

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)

"Congratulations"?

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)

Edits

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

Bacteria

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)

Archives

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)

WTF?

I have been trying to add my link, www.smokinglobby.com 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 (talk • contribs)

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 characters from The Shield. I only want to keep the central characters (strike team, detectives, captain) to minimize the listy aspect of the page. What do you think? Mahanga^Talk 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)

Cilium

Check Cilium.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loser14 (talk • contribs)

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

WP:GRIEF

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)

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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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 ^{( 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)

Davesomerville.jpg‎

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?

Thank 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

		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? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)