User talk:Kafziel/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct new comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 DLI 2 MI 3 HAWK article WIP 4 Subase New London 5 Thanks! 6 More thanks! 7 Thanks 8 Star Wars: Battlefront II 9 Imperial Navy 10 Please be serious 11 About merging, in general 12 Thanks 13 COTW Project 14 "Working group" wikifications 15 About changing name 16 Speedy tags 17 User talk:Soulescape 18 Thanks for the message 19 Third opinion 20 User:165.29.159.126 21 Hey, 22 Luminare 23 "grim and frosbitten" 24 Invasion 25 Personal Attack warning 26 Second Personal Attack warning 27 Thanks for the welcome 28 Featured! 29 WWI title pic 30 Thanks 31 WP:3o 32 HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! 33 thanks 34 Dear Kafziel 35 invasion 36 Congratulations 37 Date links 38 Bob Geldof 39 Do not change my post headings under any circumstances! 40 Special characters in Wiktionary 41 I need some assistance please 42 Question 43 About the chokehold article 44 WP:3o 45 invasion 46 Bath School disaster 47 Madea's Family Reunion 48 Thanks 49 US Bill of Rights 50 3k 51 Yet another date links proposal 52 United States Bill of Rights 53 How can I Aquire the Absinthe decanter (or one exactly like it) ? 54 Hurricane (song) 55 Thanks 56 The Diamonds 57 Bath School disaster 58 a good example of new citing guidelines? 59 Terry f'n Crowley 60 Ontario elections 61 Hey.. 62 What do you want? 63 Family Tree Pages 64 Possible Image Violation 65 zarbon 66 HPuppet 67 Brendan Filone 68 Who do I talk to? 69 Images 70 Zarbon socks #8, #9, and #10 71 ProhibitOnions's RfA 72 Thank you

[edit] DLI

Thanks for the keeping the DLI article bleeding-edge, I hadn't seen any of that information about the BRAC. When were you at the Det? I was there early 99 to late 2000. Fox1 20:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MI

No worries. I figured it was just a goof. Cheers! 23skidoo 18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HAWK article WIP

Hello - I'm currently working on a complete re-write of the HAWK article - currently sitting in my sandbox User:Megapixie/HawkWIP. You mentioned you had some experience with the system and I wondered if you could help - I'm struggling with some of the differences between variants of the missiles (and dates of inception). Do you happen to know what the difference is between the MIM-23C and MIM-23D missiles is?

Rather than being merged in subsequent upgrades to the system into a single type (which would seem to make sense) - they continued to exist throughout the lifetime of the system (see the family tree in the article). My best guesses are:

• One is the dumbed down export version.
• One is the Army version, one is the USMC version.
• They have alternative guidance systems (probably different bands) to make the overall system more resistant to ECM.
• One is nuclear capable (Genie style), the other isn't (unlikely).

Anyway - if you could shed any light on the subject it would be most helpful (also if you have anything else to add, please do) - feel free to make edits to the article, but please add, rather than subtracting - I will edit it down to something more readable when I have a more complete picture of the system. Megapixie 07:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Kafziel, User:Megapixie/HawkWIP has been deleted per Megapixie's request. If you'd like to see what was there, have Megapixie request undeletion from me or another admin. Cheers, Tomer^talk 03:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subase New London

Actually, I have been thinking about adding instructions to the BRAC templete for this reason. After thinking about it over diner I do believe that I was a bit hasty in removing the notice, and that the BRAC templete on the page should be reinstated. TomStar81 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Belated thanks for the barnstar, re NAS Oceana. —wwoods 20:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More thanks!

Hey, thanks for catching my error before I could. Wikipedia needs people that are as on the ball as you are. --Orgullomoore 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for my first barnstar. I'm glad to see that some people liked my little portal link. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: Battlefront II

You're doing a good job on that article, and I'm glad I can be of some help to you on it. Keep up the good work. Oh, and, I'll make sure to finish up the vehicles section soon... --CountCrazy007 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Navy

Hello. Great work on disambiguating Imperial Navy. One thing though--when doing a move, it's important to keep the edit history with the page. Therefore, we use the move button instead of cutting-and-pasting the article text. I've gone ahead and fixed it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be serious

I see you put a merge on the Peter Brownback article, without initiating a discussion where you justify your action on Talk:Peter Brownback. Could you please be more serious? The guy is the Presiding officer of a highly controversial proceeding, for crying out loud.

I see you added an {Importance} tag to the Robert L. Swann (military lawyer) article. Are you seriously suggesting that being the chief prosecutor of a highly controversial trial does not make a subject import enough to merit an article in the wikipedia?

Four months ago I triggered the animosity of a highly partisan guy. He started abusing wikipedia policies and procedures, when he couldn't sway others through legitimate channels. One of his techniques was to place bogus tags on articles, which he would then refuse to explain or defend. I thought his actions were extremely disruptive, damaging and disrespectful.

It has made me sensitive to when other wikipedians aren't careful. You put a tag on the Peter Brownback article that tells readers to look to the talk page for a discussion of your suggestion. Then I think you have a serious obligation to initiate that discussion.

I fully intended to initiate a discussion as I did on the other related articles. Wikipedia's servers were having problems earlier and I was not able to get it done as quickly as I would have liked.

You are right, I do not think Robert Swann is important enough to warrant his own article. I put the "importance" tag on there before I even suggested the merge. He is only the lead prosecutor because other people have stepped down, and he hasn't made any great accomplishments since taking over. He hasn't done anything. There is practically no information to be found on him anywhere, and therefore there is not enough information to create a separate article about him. I think this information would be much better served in the main article, as I said on your talk page. Hopefully we are moving toward an understanding.

I have no intention to vandalize your pages and no personal vendetta against you; I found these stubs and they do not link to anything but each other, so I wanted to move them where they can be seen. Kafziel 15:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About merging, in general

A lot of wikipedians are keen on the idea of merging every article in sight. However, many of the merges I have seen have degraded the value of the wikipedia, not enhanced it. Articles are all linear, from top to bottom. Human knowledge is a network. A constellation of smaller, linked articles suits most topics better than one large monolith article. It makes it easier for readers to read only those portions that meet their needs. It makes linking to other articles more useful. When I click on a link to another article I don't want to guess as to how it relates to article I was just reading. I don't want to spend five minutes to searching for the couple of paragraphs in a big article that relates to the actual information I need. I don't want to spend 30 seconds searching for it -- not when those couple of paragraphs could stand on their own.

That is my view on the value of merging. So, what is yours?

Ah. I see you have left a note on my talk page. I am about to go read it. -- Geo Swan 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I will respond here. Yes, I did misunderstand your intent.

Thanks for the heads-up on the lack of connectedness of those articles. That is one of the things that fellow I mentioned used to do -- remove the passages with the links I made between articles. But, that may just be something that has to be lived with.

Brownback, Swann, Borch, Carr, Preston are all connected to the military commissions. But lawyers like Colangelo-Bryan aren't. A couple of months ago I considered starting an article, like List of Guantanamo Bay detainees about the lawyers, which described the legal hurdles the DoD has put into place. These roadblocks go almost unmentioned. Muneer Ahmad described trying to review his notes from his first meeting with Omar Khadr. When they want to meet with their clients they have to book an appointment, a month or more in advance, then fly to Guantanamo. They notes they take in to the meeting have to be subjected to a security review. And, after they meet with their clients, they have to hand in the notes they took, for another security review. They don't get to see their own notes. They have to wait until their notes have been cleared, and then go to a secure site in the DC area, to read them. Muneer Ahmad found that all twenty pages of his notes were classified.

I would prefer that this information found its way into the wikipedia, but wasn't buried in the articles about Ahmad and Khadr.

I think the legal roadblocks merits an article, but I don't know how to start one that won't spark a controversy over bias.

In the meantime, would you be satisfied if I started another table on the guantanamo military commissions article, with an entry for each known lawyer, with links to the articles about each lawywer with notable information? -- Geo Swan 15:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, removed my suggestions for merging (and the "importance" tag) from the articles, and started a new "prosecution" section on the Guantanamo military commissions page. Hopefully that will draw some new contributors to the other articles and help bring in some new information. I'm glad we were able to find some middle ground so easily! Kafziel 16:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I haven't been going through my watchlist lately, so I just noticed Max rspct's edit of my user page. I appreciate your reverting him. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User page censorship is a big pet peeve of mine. Glad to help. Kafziel 01:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COTW Project

You voted for Invasion, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Working group" wikifications

What difference does the pluralization make? Does Wikipedia have a code of etiquette on the matter? Folajimi^(talk)

Thanks for the note. However, I had no idea that my actions would inadvertently "tax the system" by performing a double redirect(?) Nevertheless, I shall see if I can correct the errors once I am through.

In the meantime, I shall heed your suggestion. Folajimi^(talk)

How can the pluralization redirect pages be deleted? Or what should become of them? Folajimi^(talk)

Thank you for notifying me about the working group blunder in time. Once I completed the original effort, I went back to redirect the articles with the improper formatting. Thanks again for the heads-up. Folajimi^(talk)

[edit] About changing name

Dear Kafziel, it's Yann speaking, I changed my name to Triskell on the Camp Detla talk page, I added a comment about it somewhere. This is not okay? --Triskell 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize that was you. But no, that is not okay. "Triskell" did not contribute those comments, as can be seen in that user name's list of contributions. That is why I thought it was vandalism.

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Having multiple names does not look good for you. Flipping user pages like that can hurt your credibility. Are you Guehene? Cassiopeia? Triskell? Who knows? Sock puppets are permitted in certain cases but generally not a very good idea. :Everyone has an argument or two in their history, it's not the end of the world. Just try not to get into any more and eventually it will be forgotten. Kafziel 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I had read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry but this is not my intention nor it is to hide our argument. I actually would like to forward things from Guehene to Triskell, as I have already started to do here because I don't like the name Guehene as a user name (and Cassiopeia was already taken). What solution do I have? --Triskell 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your problem. What you will need to do is "move" your user page, just like you would a regular article page. If you want to use the name "Triskell" here is what you will need to do:

1. Post User:Triskell on speedy deletions (because you need it to be completely erased). When you post it make sure you are signed in as Triskell so they know it is your page.
2. Once that page has been deleted by an admin, go to User:Guehene and click on the tab at the top that says "move" (just to the right of the "history" tab).
3. A page will come up asking you where you want to move it to. Say you want to move it to User:Triskell and the system will move it for you along with your talk and history.
4. Once that is done, go back to WP:SD and request that User:Guehene be deleted. (This time post your request as Guehene, so again they know it is your page.) When that is deleted, you will officially be Triskell and you will have no sock puppets. Good luck! Kafziel 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this most useful information! I'll do that right now... All the best! --Triskell 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Any time. We agnostic Bush-haters have to stick together! :) Kafziel 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Heartwarming. *sniff* ;) -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you, you made my wikipeducation :-D See you around... --Triskell 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tags

I noticed you dropped speedy tags on Soulescape.com and Soulescape with a reason of "advertising". Do note that advertising does not appear anywhere in WP:CSD, which are deliberately narrowly phrased. I've removed the speedy tag, redirected the second to the first, and we should allow AfD to do its work. If you would like adverts to be speediable, you can propose this at WT:CSD, but it is frequently proposed and rejected for a number of reasons. It makes admins' life easier if speedy tags are not placed in a speculative manner, since they do not then have to do the legwork of an AfD nomination which the original tagger ought more properly to have done. Thanks. -Splash^talk 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The deleting admin is the one takes full responsibility for the deletion. They cannot palm the blame for a wrongful deletion off onto anyone else, and so admins must be sure they are deleting in a manner that will not get them in trouble. Removing tags from an article is indeed vandalism, but that doesn't make it a speedy! Indeed, once the article is listed on AfD, it can't be removed (unless the vandal is very knowledegable) and so it's enough to just reinstate the AfD tag. As for WP:VAND, "spam" and "advert" appear once and once only on the page, both in the same sentence. That one sentence explicitly refers to external links rather than mere text. However, sometimes things are clearly pure spam despite the presence of text and can, barely, be speedied under this provision. However, the manifestation of this part of WP:VAND is actually CSD A3 which also talks about external links. (In fact, it has been very poorly rephrased and has had that particular rather neutered.) The time you spent clearing up is of course appreciated, but when somebody is using the CSD in a manner they are not intended for, I don't see anything wrong in letting them know. -Splash^talk 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Soulescape

Hi. Can you let me know what template you used for the warning? Thanks! --Perfecto 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the message

I responded over at my talk page by the way. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Cheers for the note on my user page. It's much appreciated. I definitely think wikipedians should be more vocal when someone is doing well, as well as telling them off when they're not. :) MartinRe 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:165.29.159.126

Five edits in an eight day span should be easy enough to handle by oneself. Since it appears to be a static IP and possibly not shared, I'll go ahead and block it for 48 hours. Really, though, WP:AIV should be used for more urgent requests. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:39, Feb. 7, 2006

Thanks for the help. It was an urgent request at the time; I never know how long he'll be on or how many times he'll vandalize the page before he's gone. I doubt he even noticed the last block because it was only for a few hours and he probably never even tried to come back until after it had expired.

The nature of the edit makes me wonder if it's actually Victor Rasuk himself, and maybe he's embarrassed about that part of his article so he keeps taking it out. I've never seen such a persistent (and consistent) vandal. Kafziel 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"I've never seen such a persistent (and consistent) vandal." ← lol, you must be new? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:48, Feb. 7, 2006

LOL, I've seen some persistent vandals, but I've never seen someone stick to the exact same edits to the exact same page over the course of a number of weeks, especially without ever making other comments (not even on the talk page or the edit summaries), never getting mad that I keep reverting him, never trying to vandalize my user page... vandals with this much of a one-track mind are pretty rare. Kafziel 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey,

There's a certain word I'd love to put here but I won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatBarrington (talk • contribs)

Oh, by all means - feel free. All I ask is that you have the sack to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). Looking forward to your wisdom. Kafziel 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luminare

I'll be more clear here. Luminare is not acting in good faith. The ground-work for removing the German study was attempted three days ago at the talk page for the verifiability policy - specifically, the section [[1]]. This is a continuing pattern of behavior - Luminare attempts to create some sort of false consensus that a policy say something that it dosent on the policy talk page, then goes to one of her three POV-push articles, and tries to use that conversation as a basis to remove information he dosen't like. You are late to this pattern, but it is blatently obvious. I suggest you ask any of the reputable admins participating in the "discussion" at the verifiability page what they believe Luminare's motivation is. You will find that WP:AGF has been left behind quite some time ago. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already looked at the histories of everyone on that page and I know Lumiere has been uncivil and difficult at times. We've all made mistakes. Fortunately for all involved, we're not arguing the merits of the individuals in the discussion, but the merits of the different points of view.

As I said at the bottom of the talk page, the reasons seem clear for removing the mention of the German study. As it stands, it's not verifiable. All I see is an obviously biased website and a German site I can't read. If you can come up with some unbiased English source material with which to verify the story, I would support keeping it. If you can't, then it isn't independently verifiable (and, at the risk of sounding ethnocentric, if it can't be verified anywhere in English, maybe it isn't notable enough to be included on the English Wikipedia).

Lumiere may get into a lot of unreasonable arguments, but as they say, even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while. ;) Kafziel 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

When exactly I was uncivil? Am I uncivil now? I think others have been uncivil. --Lumière 21:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to go back to the old citation, in which the study was made refrence to only in relation to the ruling of the german court. However, if we did that, all of the statements about how the study were so terribly biased would obviously have to go, because they are not discussed in the german court decision, which is obviously WP:V, even if the web-translation of the decision is hosted by someone who you have determined is not WP:RS. The court decision itself can be cited per a court decision, rather than as a web reference. Does this work? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak German; what does the ruling itself actually say? Did the German government rule that meditating is bad for you and make some kind of law against it? Does the German government publish warnings against the dangers of meditation? I'm not clear on the ruling itself.

If, at the end of this, we have verifiable sources for the study's results and no verifiable sources stating that it was biased, that's fine with me. Both sides need sources, not just yours. That's for sure. Kafziel 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You did great work here. It's appreciated. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "grim and frosbitten"

Sorry about that. And thanks for such a speedy detection.

[edit] Invasion

I tried to put in footnotes for the reference section. I hope I did it right. If they are correct, in my opinion this article is ready for FAC. The worst that could happen is that we get more feedback on how to make it better. If you think it's ready also, I'll let you do the honors of nominating it (you have worked on it more). Cool RENTA^{FOR LET?} 02:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me. I'll have to make a note of how you did that, for future reference. Okay, I guess it's time to throw it into the lions' den and see what happens! Kafziel 05:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack warning

Please refrain from attacking other editors because you assume that they did not act in good faith. Read WP:AGF --Lumière 21:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Ha ha ha ha ha Kafziel 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Personal Attack warning

Please refrain from personal attack such as in this edit, in which you accuse User:Lumiere of "spiteful retaliation". This type of misconducts happen when an editor is convinced that he has no point of view. Read WP:AGF again. -Lumière 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Kafziel 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a a sort of nervous laugh! -Lumière 17:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen, man, I'm not sure what you want me to say. I haven't touched the article for days, so why don't you go do what you want to do and stop harrassing me? I tried to help you out; I was on your side from the beginning and defended your stance against Hipocrite. But the topic of the article itself is so meaningless to me, I really don't feel the need to deal with your bullshit anymore, especially since if I'm gone, you don't have a single ally left on that page. So have at it. Enjoy yourself. Kafziel 17:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I reverted the comment that I made about your nervous laugh, because I felt it wasn't useful. You don't care about the article, but you do care about other things such as erased comments that are hidden in the history. You dig into he history, find these comments, put them back in your talk page and reply! BTW, it is you that keep harassing me. I just replied to your personal attacks. --Lumière 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's my talk page history. I'll "dig" through it if I damn well please. You made the comment and then deleted it, which I do not find acceptable on my talk page. You can apologize for it if you'd like, but you can't delete it. Next time you post a comment, think about it before you hit "save".

I'm not sure if you're making these harrassment claims for your own gratification or for posterity or what, but it's pretty clear that you don't have a leg to stand on since these are all posts on my talk page. I can write whatever I want here; if you weren't stalking me, you wouldn't even know I was writing anything here. Kafziel 17:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not complaining about the fact that you undeleted my comment. I just find it interesting that you did that. That's all. This was not an harassment. Just replying to you. BTW, I know that you wanted to help. It just did not work well, and you started to misinterpret my edits and attack me. I appreciate your initial good will. Lumière 18:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my help worked quite well for the section I was called in on. The entire thing was marked with source requests and re-written to be perfectly NPOV, with the help of a German-speaking TM practitioner. (You're welcome, by the way.) The problem didn't arise until after I had done all that, when you found a different section to pick at instead. At which point I realized you were more interested in arguing than in creating a good article. So I lost interest, because the topic of the article couldn't possibly mean less to me and I'm not going to waste time trying to help ungrateful and argumentative editors.

Now, please go back to doing what you were doing and leave me alone. Don't even feel the need to reply to this. Your leaving me in peace will be thanks enough. Kafziel 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (nevertheless). I must have the last word! --Lumière 18:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

I've actually been editing minor Wiki typos for quite a while, but never a really major edit, for fear of stepping on toes. (Well actually I worked on the E. Nesbit article.) laddiebuck 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have you. Enjoy yourself, and if you have any questions or problems don't hesitate to ask. Kafziel 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured!

I just wanted to let you know that Pink Floyd is now a featured article. Thanks a ton for supporting the candidacy! - dharmabum 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWI title pic

Original message: Have you seen the photoshopped errors in your picture? They're not in the original photos, just in your collage version. I'm a little confused because I know you are serious about these topics, so I can't imagine that it was you who did it. Thought you might want to know. Kafziel 23:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Thanks a lot, Kafziel! No, I am not the perpetrator :) . At first I didn't understand what you meant, and it took me quite a while to spot the difference - the vandalism was very subtle and professional. Actually I had a laugh - a swastika on a WW1 plane and Bruce Willis in the trenches (he must have thought of the movie Twelve Monkeys). Anyway, thanks for notifying me! I have tagged the fake image for speedy deletion. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

"Not a bad looking article, by the way." Is that the woman or the page? ;-D Giano | talk 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... well, maybe back in 1912. I don't know about the old lady version, though. :) Kafziel 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3o

I wonder if the 3o you gave on naked short selling was worded strongly enough - I agree complete with what you said, but I think you might have wanted to come in stronger, with something like "I find that including the entirey of the SEC quote is excessive. I believe the best solution is to summarize the entirety of the quote in one paragraph and provide a link to the full quote for anyone interested." It looks like you're about to get mired into a back and forth over there. If you'd like some backup, I'm happy to help - I think 3o is a great tool, and I salute all the providers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

I owe you an apology. I mean who was I to tell you to put footnotes in the Invasion article? Honestly, I know nothing & you knew better than me! Therefore you shouldn't put the footnotes in. Oh? What? Someone just told me you did put footnotes in?! That would make me.... Right? And you would be? Wrong? A know-it-all? Hmmm... I guess I did know better than you & Renta aye? I guess you shouldn't have put me down all those times & maybe done the job I asked you to do earlier? Have a nice time kicking youself.... Spawn Man 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude... get over it. I didn't say you were right, I said even though it is not a valid objection, I'm tired of arguing about it. So yes, your insane ramblings (as well as actual threats against RentaStrawberry) helped break down my resolve. Yes, a 15-year-old showed up and said he likes footnotes. He asked nicely, and I was tired of explaining the same thing over and over, so I just did it.

Wow. I've met some fucking children on Wikipedia, but you take the cake. Kafziel 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now now Caféreel, lets not get all wound up because you were absolutely wrong. Besides, I'm twenty five. Where does everyone get that I'm 14-15? Is there a "Make Spawn sound younger than he really is" project? Anyway, using the word "fucking" is naughty. What would your mother say? Spawn Man 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. I really like cake, so I'm glad I took some!

The guy who "agrees" with you is 15 years old. Obviously I wasn't talking about you, because I said he asked nicely. Kafziel 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's a comedian.... Spawn Man 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. Don't quit your day job...

[edit] thanks

Kafziel, thanks for the kind welcome, I hope to be both bold and prudent. I look forward to contributing loads more in the future (after getting through all the tuts)

Kind Regard Darren--Daz 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Kafziel, thanks for the welcome message. By the way, "I do not believe a neutral point of view and a politically correct point of view are the same thing; in fact, they are often opposites.". Brilliant and ever so true. Logank 19:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Kafziel

Hi. I've read many wikipedia articles over the past year. My question for you is (I haven't contributed too much yet) - Should I update information about my profile. I don't want to add my name as a vanity thing - just if it's helpful for other wiki users. I guess that's the main question I have for now. I hope I can count on you to be a good wiki mentor for me :).

Sean

Hi, Sean,

It's not required to add information to your user page if you don't want to; there are quite a few good wikipedians out there who have been contributing for years and have never written anything on their user pages.

In some of the projects I work on, it helps for people to be able to see some information about me (where I'm from, a little bit of background, etc.) so they know where I'm coming from. But it's not necessary.

One good thing about at least putting something on there is that it turns your user name from a red link to a blue link; even if all you do is say hello. Having your name in blue helps other editors trust you more. You'll see what I mean after you've been editing for a while.

The best thing about having a user page is that when you type four ~ at the end of what you write, it turns into your signature and people can click on it to be able to send messages to you more easily. So when I'm done typing this, all I have to do is hit ~ four times, and it makes this: Kafziel 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] invasion

Well, I have been a periodic editor of this article, which you previously thanked me for. I liked the article and happen to like the list of invasions the article included. I did see why several had been removed from the list (and I did not research who had done it--in a public article that does not matter) so I put them back in--as I have a right and obligation as an editor to do. You provided an explanation of what you are doing now. That's fine. I am not sure about the title of the new section involving 'records'. Invasions can be historically significant (having a major immediate impact or subsequent impact) without having set any records. Perhaps you might want to consider renaming the section as 'major invasions' and having within that section subsections for each major invasion with a narrative. That would make it easier for the reader, I believe. Thanks. Hmains 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you've done work on the article before, which is why I was offended. When you went into history to get the info to put back in, you should have been able to see that it wasn't some nut who made the change and looked a little closer. It's not a big deal at all to me, I'm really not angry or anything, honest.

I agree that invasions can be historically significant without setting records. That's why the second section is still there. A voter on the FAC page asked for info on record setting invasions, and no one objected, so I set it up that way.

When the rest of the list is removed (which will be in a little while) it will be in a section like what you just suggested; a main section of "Other significant invasions" and subsections for each one. Kafziel 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense meant/intended--just my inexperience showing. Thanks for your good work. Hmains 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You did really well on getting that article from a stub to FA. You deserve a big congratulations. Now I guess it's on to the next project ha. Maybe we can work on another article like this in the future. RENTA^{FOR LET?} 18:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. If you ever nom another COTW or want help on getting an article featured, I'll be happy to pitch in. Kafziel 19:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A belated congratulations. It really is a well-done article. Can't wait to see what you do next. :) Gflores ^Talk 18:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Geldof

Yes I think some people haven't quite got the meaning of WP:V. It is perfectly possible his father's mother was Jewish but I found no reliable info on google referring to it. Arniep 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not change my post headings under any circumstances!

I recently observed a blatant attempt by yourself to tarnish my reputation when you changed my heading "Haaaaaaaaaa!!" to "Hate Mail" in this edit; [2]. Please do not ever do so again or I will get serious, as so many other smarmy neanderthals have found out too late. Don't be one of those neanderthals. Spawn Man 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

You posted to that section after I changed the heading. I thought that's what you were talking about when you said, "Everybody's a comedian." But I guess "NY humor" is different than "NZ humour". You don't need my help tarnishing your reputation; you're doing just fine on your own. It did strike me as sad to have to hide the evidence of your behavior in an archive, though, so thanks for continuing your insane ramblings and stalking onto my fresh talk page. Kafziel 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd watch yourself with me, you're not making any pen pals here.... And yes, New York persons seem to be too wrapped up in their meaningless lives with their funny accents & stupid names like "Kafziel"? I mean, what kinda funny name is Kafziel? Honestly, you're angering me so I'm gonna not worry about your pathetic fungal mass you call a body any more!! Spawn Man 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC). BTW, I never should have changed my vote to support you! Toad stool!

What does that mean, "watch yourself with me"? Surely it's not a physical threat, because you're clearly the type of person who likes to talk tough on the Internet before going back to painting his Lord of the Rings vinyl model kits. So I assume it's a Wikipedia-based threat, which couldn't be more laughable. What can you do? I haven't done anything wrong. How many messages have I left on your talk page? How many users have I threatened? You don't seem to have a leg to stand on, and even if you did... oooooh. A vengeant Wikipedian stalker from New Zealand who calls people toad stools. Frightening stuff, seriously. Kafziel 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's it! You've thrown my hand! I'm gonna say something I really didn't want to say to you, but after you insulted my mother! My mother!!!! That's just the last straw!! .....You're an absolute banana head! There you go, that's my threat taken into action! Spawn Man 03:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC). BTW, what's wrong with painting for money? Like to see you do better. Plus, banana head, it's not vinyl! Ha! I laugh in your general direction.... ! Plus more, thanks for obviously viewing my review's page!!! I appreciate it!

[edit] Special characters in Wiktionary

Is this the right place to ask the following question? I tried to start a Wiktionary article on the Greek word "νᾶνος", but in the heading Internet Explorer showed the Greek letter alpha with a circumflex accent as a square. This can be corrected with a Unicode template or a Polytonic template (if that template will be accepted in Wiktionary), but apparently not in the heading. To avoid this I entered the article under the heading "νανος" without the accent, with a cross-reference from the form with the accent. Is there a better way to do it? Ericus 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot of browsers can't properly display certain characters. Looks like you may have come up with a good solution, but I've only contributed to wiktionary a couple of times so I'm not positive about their policies. Worth a try, anyway. Just out of curiosity, why put a Greek word in an English dictionary? I mean, shouldn't it at least be transliterated into Latin letters or something? The Greek Wiktionary is here, if that helps at all. Good luck! Kafziel 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This text is from the main page of the English wiktionary: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages, with definitions and descriptions in English only. For example, see Wörterbuch (a German word). In order to find a German definition of that word, you would visit the equivalent page in the German Wiktionary." This means that we should be able to put Greek words in all wiktionaries. The difference is that the English one has English definitions, whereas the Greek one has Greek definitions. Ericus 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Weird, but cool. I'll have to check out Wiktionary more one of these days. Well, sorry I couldn't be more help since I don't really use that site much, but hopefully your solution will work. Kafziel 17:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need some assistance please

Someone really messed up the HTML in the article Battle of Bunker Hill. Since I no little to nothing about HTML could you fix it? I already removed a nonsense prahse from the top but, can't fix the rest. I ask User:Wyss but hhe is not responding. Please help (Steve 19:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I reverted to an even older version, before any of the vandalism started. Looks okay now. Kafziel 20:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping! :) (Steve 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Question

I was wondering, if you were interested, in joining Middle-earth WikiProject. We've revamped, and unofficially merged with Silmarillion WikiProject to start over since the others were inactive. The WikiProject's still in his baby stages, so we've just started officially yesterday.

We need more members and this WikiProject is a good way for all the Tolkien fans to come join together in an organized and efficient way so that maybe one day, one of the Tolkien-related articles may reach to FA status, among other things.

If you don't want to, or you just have a minor interest in LotR, then you needn't to join if you don't want. Thanks for taking time to read this :). So if you join, our thanks! —Mirlen 15:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I don't think I'm enough of an expert on the subject to add much to the content, but I'd certainly be willing to stop in from time to time to help with copyedits, etc. I've been very impressed with the Middle Earth articles I've read so far, and I'd be happy to help if I can. Kafziel 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the chokehold article

This is something i've been working on for quite some time now. The term "chokehold" is a misnomer that comes from "choking", while the correct term for such a technique is "stranglehold". But if you insist, i'll open a discussion about it. ---Marcus- 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with anyone else, maybe somewhere I didn't see it? By the way, I wouldn't have a problem with renaming the Chokehold article "Stranglehold"; that would still differentiate it properly from actual strangulation. Kafziel 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll open a discussion about this in the chokehold article. I reverted all the link edits back for now. ---Marcus- 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to split the strangling article, and use some of the material to improve the chokehold article instead. This will make it easier to link directly to strangleholds/chokeholds from various martial arts articles. So no worries about that anymore. ---Marcus- 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3o

I will be forming an RFC shortly, sadly enough. Thank you for your assistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] invasion

Wow, that is a badass article. I am really impressed. ... aa:talk 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was my first FAC nom, and it was an interesting experience. Can't say I'm in a huge hurry to do it again, but I'm glad I did it and I'm sure I'll do it again eventually. Kafziel 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bath School disaster

Thanks for your note and for your vote on the FAC. Jtmichcock 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madea's Family Reunion

Thanks for trying; I thought my rewritten copy was a decent compromise - it's good to know that I'm not completely out of my gourd. Mhking 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

• Always nice to wakeup to a barnstar in your discussion page. Thanks and please help with what you can. Sometimes I think I bit off more than I can chew by creating that thing.--Looper5920 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I gave you the Expeditionary Medal; there hasn't been a specific campaign medal created for Wikipedia, but it's definitely a battle trying to maintain big projects like that! ;) Kafziel 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Bill of Rights

Back, and better than ever. You voted on the last one, come see the improvements. Kaisershatner 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3k

And congratulations on your three thousandth edit. :) ... aa:talk 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks - I never thought I'd stick around this long! I guess I'm officially an addict. :) Kafziel 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 11:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Bill of Rights

Hi, I clipped 50% of the text of the second paragraph; what remains of the intro, in my opinion, is essential to giving an overview of the United States Bill of Rights: (1) what it is, (2) where it comes from, (3) why it matters. I hope I can swing you from conditional to "Support." Either way, I enjoyed reading your userpage. Sounds like we have some common interests. Kaisershatner 14:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can I Aquire the Absinthe decanter (or one exactly like it) ?

Hello RE: (del) (cur) 23:12, 27 January 2006 . . Kafziel (Talk) . . 480x640 (35813 bytes) (A decanter full of Absinthe. Taken by me. At my house. In the U.S.) The picture that is posted in your article

How can I Aquire the decanter (or one exactly like it) ? The decanter can be empty Just trying to aquire a decanter like yours Would you be willing to sell yours ? If so, at what cost ?

Any help would be appreciated

Thanx, Bryan Hopkins 917.439.9345 bryanhopkins@mac.com

I bought the decanter on eBay several years ago. The Absinthe itself is from Spain. Neither is for sale, sorry. Kafziel 17:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanx (again) Bryan Hopkins 060325

[edit] Hurricane (song)

How did Carter and Artis "win" a new trial? Lion King 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... with the New Jersey Supreme Court verdict. Is that not clear? I thought it was implied that they won the right through legal proceedings, as opposed to winning it on The Price is Right. ;) If you think it needs clarification, feel free. I have no problem with that. Kafziel 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

LOL, thanks!Gator (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Diamonds

Greetings. First I want to thank you for starting the page on The Diamonds. For the past eight years I have maintained a web site dedicated to this group. I am also the user Min7th, who made the edits on the page you started. One thing I subscribe to is obeying the rules, so I have a question about links. Is it proper to link my web site to the Wikipedia page? I sell nothing on the site and my opinions are positive toward the memory of The Diamonds. I just want to give the opportunity to have complete information. www.min7th.com/diamonds is the link if you wish to check it out. I look forward to hearing from you.

It's not usually a good idea to link to your own web page from an article you are editing, but that's an excellent web site, so I've inserted the link myself. This way it's simply a case of giving readers good information, without the appearance of any vanity on your part. Nice work on the article here, too, by the way. Kafziel 00:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks == min7th 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bath School disaster

Thanks for the note! I've been getting a lot of positive feedback and I'm really pleased that a lot of attention has been focused on those poor kids. Jtmichcock 11:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a good example of new citing guidelines?

Could you guide me to a page that does a good job of following the reccomended guidelines so that I can import that style into the Idit Harel Caperton article? Thanks again for your peer review. youngamerican (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Invasion is one of mine, and the first time I had to deal with using the new cite format. It's a good example because it has a mixture of web-based sources and book sources, so if you can see the differences in the coding.

Basically the difference is that you put the source information right in the text, and then the references section creates itself.

If you have any questions, let me know. Kafziel 15:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be having trouble with the following citation: Harel, Idit & Papert, Seymour (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In Idit Harel & Seymour Papert (Ed.), Constructionism, pp. 51-52. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. ISBN 0-89391-785-0.

The template is not clear on how to cite chapters in a compilation book. youngamerican (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The long version of the template is {{cite book | last= | first= | authorlink= | coauthors= | editor= | others= | title= | origdate= | origyear= | origmonth= | url= | format= | accessdate= | accessyear= | accessmonth= | edition= | date= | year= | month= | publisher= | location= | language= | id= | pages= | chapter= | chapterurl= }}

You can use all or some of those fields. For the example above, you can do <ref>{{cite book|author=Idit, Harel, and Seymour|title=Software design as a learning environment|year=1991|publisher=Ablex Publishing Corporation|location=Norwood, NJ|id=ISBN 0893917850|chapter=Constructionism|pages=51-52}}</ref> which will create this^[1] and then by simply typing <references/> in the references section, the section will fill in the information automatically, like this:

References

1. ^ Idit, Harel, and Seymour (1991). "Constructionism", Software design as a learning environment. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 51-52. ISBN 0893917850. 

Hope that helps. Kafziel 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it. Check it out (if you don't mind) to see how it looks. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That'll do it! I know it's kind of a pain in the ass to do the changes at first, but now if you need to move sections around or whatever, the references will move with them without getting jumbled up. Nice work. Kafziel 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry f'n Crowley

Real people take precedence over fictional characters. The baseball player should stay where he is, because he's a real-life famous person. Fictional characters (or less-famous real-life people) that share a name are the ones that get the () in the title. Everything works fine the way it is now. Kafziel 23:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I may have fubared, based on your statement here. User:Zarbon had moved "Terry Crowley" to "Terry Crowley (player)" and thereby made it a redirect. What I did was make "Terry Crowley" redirect to "Terry Crowley (disambiguation)" instead. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably the right thing to do here is to have "Terry Crowley" be the ball player, and have a note at the top directing people to the disambiguation page if they are looking for someone else. Chances are, most people searching for Terry Crowley are going to be looking for the ball player, not the linguist. Even so, your way is much better than the way Zarbon had it. If it's hard to tell who is the most famous, your way is the best bet. In this case, one look at the linguist's page tells you all you need to know. I'll fix it. Thanks for your help, by the way - what a pain in the ass this turned into, huh? :) Kafziel 23:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario elections

Could I please request that you *not* de-link the redlinks on these pages. This has come up for discussion before; several former redlinks have subsequently been linked to candidate list pages per a Wikipedia compromise (removing the links simply creates more work when the list pages are established). CJCurrie 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see that on the discussion page. But per the rules in the Manual of Style, excessive redlinks (especially to non-notable persons, such as the loser of an election 25 years ago) should be avoided. If you create the article, then you can go back and link it. Until then, it shouldn't be there. However, I did leave red links for anyone who is marked as having won their election.

There are also repetetive links; each person should only be linked to once per article. I haven't removed the redundant ones. Kafziel 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey..

Hey Kafziel.. please do not get mad at me, but I changed your GA decision on Tacitus. See my points on it's talk page, hopefully it's justified. If you are any problems reply here (if you could drop a note on my talk page that would help too, especially if it's urgent), Thanks much Highway 16:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your notes. Different editors have different standards for Good Articles, and I have no problem with your removal of the tag.

I'm starting to work on some changes in the article, so obviously I will recuse myself if and when it is nominated again. Thanks for your input. Kafziel 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted me to review it again (haha sure :P) then I'd do it, GA is meant to be "an editor's opinion of an article from the opinion of another article"(said by Corbell Simpson) so editting then reviewing may be confusing.. or whatever :P I know I'm rather strict about GAs :P I tend to think of it as one below FA, resulting in me being mean. I'm also a grammar nazi which doesn't help. Another reason that every single award is important in my eyes is because I'm on the Pokémon Project, so every award is an uphill struggle. Anyway :P, thank you for taking it so well (I've had people scream at me in my 3 day history of doing this XD) Thanks much Highway 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly no hard feelings from me; I had never seen that article before, so it's nothing to me if it doesn't get GA status - you might hear from the guy who wrote it though... :)

Anyway, good luck and happy editing! Kafziel 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever he gives me I've had worse ; ) I have actually been screamed at, only for the article to be failed by someone else in about 10 minutes. Those are the breaks, Highway 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you want?

Excuse me, but what is your problem? I didn't do anything to you! I don't have to login every single time I make an edit. This is my ip address and I'm not a sock puppet. Please stop accusing me and stop saying bad things to me. Also, YES, i understand about the tagging and i won't edit again, but i will be adding my opinion on the matter in the discussion page. Ok? - Zarbon

I didn't say you have to log in every time you edit, but I know you tend to switch back and forth and I wanted to make sure you saw the warnings I was leaving for you, to give you a chance to not get blocked.

As for not doing anything to me... well, every time you vandalize a page from The Shield, I'm the one who has to fix it. It gets a little old after a while. Kafziel 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing. I just hate the tagging. It makes the pages look extremely unprofessional. So whatever the problem is, I hope its resolved soon. Margos Dezerian happens to be my alltime favorite character from the shield, and he is EXTREMELY important to the plotline. same with terry. the strike team is NOT the only important characters. the people i created pages for, deserve their own pages. that's not vandalism. And I'm chatting it out in the talk page like you said. - Zarbon

Believe me - it's not the tags that make those pages look unprofessional. They look terrible all by themselves.

The problem here is that you don't listen to anyone. Removing the tags is vandalism, and it's too bad if you think the pages look bad with them. That's what all those warnings were about. But you just don't get it. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Speaking of talking to a brick wall, how many times have you been warned about taking that picture off of your user page? Others have removed it, numerous people have posted messages to you about it, and it has even been deleted. But you keep uploading it and putting it back on. The reasons for not having it has been explained plenty of times, and there is nothing you can say or do that will make it okay. You need to take it off - now - or you will be blocked for that and you can forget all about the discussion on The Shield pages. Kafziel 13:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family Tree Pages

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me. I noticed there are a number of "family tree" pages up (they are linked to on Zarbon's page). They are all, uneccessary, contain false info, and do not even count as family trees. I put one up for deletion, but was hoping you or someone else could nominate the others (I'm not 100% fluent in how do to things like that yet and don't want to mess things up). Your vote would also be appreciated.--Orion Minor 09:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Image Violation

Umm...I noticed that Zarbon put up a pic of DBZ Zarbon on his page again. This time it uses an image of the character from one of the video games (http://www.jeux-france.com/Webmasters/Images/3962520050625_194028_4_big.jpg). Isn't that still a violation?

I've left him a note. Kafziel 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zarbon

(I realize now I should have started at the bottom) I found your page because I have had a similar run-in with zarbon. In my opinion, he is ruining episode summaries of The Sopranos, making them look like they were written by drooling school girls. His contributions lack an encyclopedic point of view and thus harm the website as a whole. He should create fan-pages for his favorite characters. Brendan Filone is a character who appeared alive in two episodes of The Sopranos and probably had about 20 minutes of airtime. But he wants those shows to glorify him. And whenever one of his "favorite" characters (he has about 4 or 5) appears in a show, he arranges the guest list so that person is on top. Just childish things. Here are two of my favorite Zarbon replies for reasons for his edits:

• "it doesn't matter. will that one line kill you? No. But it will kill me if its not there. I live for Brendan Filone."

• "I live for Brendan Filone since he's literally my alltime favorite character so when I say I'm sure, I'm sure. Hope I cleared it up for you"

Does Wikipedia have a policy about banning people who just provide BAD content. Even if they don't do anything wrong, shouldn't there be some kind of "you must be taller than this line" rule about providing content here.

[edit] HPuppet

He probably is already using another sock puppet. He seems to be on a fixed IP address User:64.95.38.193 so a Check User against this IP will decloak him. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan Filone

Let me start by saying I am new here and have been trying to feel my way around this place. I almost threw my hands up and walked away after my encounters with Zarbon. But then I saw how much trouble he/she has caused for everyone else and was happy to see people like you taking care of a lot of the issues created by him/her. Yesterday I saw how you were able to clean up a lot of The Shield content, like removing specific pages devoted to minor characters (I have never seen The Shield, so I will have to assume you were right). I would like to request that you do the same thing with The Sopranos. Zarbon has created character-specific pages for minor players like Brendan Filone simply out of personal admiration. Nothing about Brendan justifies having a page devoted to him, and the rational you had for removing The Shield pages applies to Brendan too. There are many more important characters who would deserve individual pages before Brendan. HBO's character guide lists 35 players (both living and dead) who make up the principle cast for the show's six seasons, with no mention of Mr. Filone. As someone who cares about promoting an accurate account of this series, I can't accept this attention given to a menial character. All of the Brendan content suggests the pages were written not by scholars of the show, but rather by cheerleaders who should instead be writing fan pages.

I am only asking you to take care of this because I lack the knowledge (and maybe the authority) to do it myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleymullins (talk • contribs)

I see what you mean. Compared with the other characters at List of characters from The Sopranos, he should have one or two sentences at most under "Tertiary characters". Well, I'll tell you what - I'll tag the articles and post the initial suggestion, but I know he's going to take it personally since it's coming from me. I suggest that you write to other Sopranos contributors and ask them to weigh in on the talk page, because it won't work if you and I are the only ones supporting it. Kafziel 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to thank you really quickly Kafziel. You patience and contribution in this matter has been great. I was playing with the idea of putting a merge tag but was afraid of seemingly "attacking" Zarbon, given that I had nominated his family tree articles for deletion. It's people like him that can show the rougher edges of Wikipedia, but you have managed to display the best aspects of the community. Thanks. --Orion Minor 15:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the list called "teriary characters" after I posted this initial message, and I came to the same conclusion you did: Brendan belongs there. Wesleymullins

[edit] Who do I talk to?

Who do I talk to about a consistent vandal? User Kinokos has been vandalising pages left and right. The guide for vandalism said to put a warning on his page, but there's nothing else I can do. Am I supposed to forward his name to someone? Lastly, just what is the counter vandalism unit? Is it simply a declaration of intent to stop vandals?--Orion Minor 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Once you have posted the last warning ({{test4}}), if he vandalizes again you can report him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That will usually get you a fairly quick response, and he can be blocked. The first penalty is usually light, just a few hours or a day, and then it gets heavier each time he gets reported again.

The Counter Vandalism unit doesn't have any absolute requirements except that you never vandalize pages, and members usually patrol the Recent changes list to fix pages as soon as they are vandalized. It can be time consuming and stressful, since you tend to end up in situations like I am in with Zarbon right now, and you don't get a lot of appreciation for doing it (thanks for the note of thanks, by the way), but I think it is worth it. Kafziel 16:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Thank you for uploading Image:Samadams.jpg, it's a great image. I suggest though that any new free images you create yourself that are not somehow English-specific be uploaded to commons.wikimedia.org rather than en.wikipedia.org, that way all the projects can benefit from them right away without duplication. NTK 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a plan. I've never uploaded anything to the commons before, so I'll go check that out. Kafziel 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zarbon socks #8, #9, and #10

I noticed that you tagged #8 and #9, and I just tagged #10 (the talk page, at least). Shouldn't each of these ban evasions warrant a reset and/or extension of the block on his account? Even the puppetmaster tag on his userpage says that ban evasion will result in the ban resetting. 4.226.60.226 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It should. I requested that, but we're running a check on the IP addresses first to confirm that they are sockpuppets (which might result in a permanent ban). This is likely to be an ongoing problem for a while, at least, so thanks for your help. Kafziel 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the situation. To try to help, I attempted to translate some Zarbonspeak into English, which mostly consisted of deleting half the text and replacing charming phrases such as "went down and began doing the dirty" with "had sex". I'm sure there's a ton of this low-quality text scattered around Wikipedia which badly needs to be cleaned up; attempting to salvage Zarbon's contributions is probably going to be a grueling task but I can't stand the thought of leaving things like this on Wikipedia.4.89.246.187 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, Kafziel/archive1!
	...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you! Hello Kafziel/archive1. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?