User talk:Kafziel/archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 English on talk pages 2 National Cheng Kung University (TAIWAN) article copypaste 3 Assyrian again 4 Administrators without contributions 5 Request for blocking user 71.202.149.252 for vandalism on articles Dalai Lama & Snowflake (plant) & misc. 6 Thank-you 7 Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008. 8 IP berserkergang 9 My first hate articles. 10 Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008. 11 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Matasareanu.jpg) 12 Vandalism and Trolling 13 Continues to move pages 14 Category 15 Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008. 16 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008) 17 Section of your userpage up for deletion 18 Fox News Entry Request For Your Comments 19 User:74.73.18.198 20 Mizrahi Jews 21 Edit 22 Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008. 23 Talk page protection 24 Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008. 25 Multiple Vandalism Edits From IP Address 211.21.238.26 26 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008) 27 Deletion Request 28 Adrianzax -> Rezistenta 29 Request 30 Image copyright problem with Image:Angel Baby sample.ogg 31 Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008. 32 Fenway Park 33 Nathaniel White 34 One of your 3RR closures is being cited as a good example 35 Dalai Lama semi-protection request 36 I refute the accusation of vandalism. 37 Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008. 38 Hey! 39 Awards 40 toilet paper 41 Request for deletion article 42 Another one 43 Nathaniel White 44 Possible TyrusThomas4lyf sockpuppet 45 RfA thank-spam 46 Breathing Room 47 Vacation 48 LOL Great block template 49 Request to "followup" this user 50 thanks 51 Marshall McGearty Lounge 52 response

English on talk pages

Please will you tell to these guys to use English on talk pages? Thank you. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they haven't done it for a little a while... I will ask if I see it again. Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also user Revizionist here and user BalkanFever here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

National Cheng Kung University (TAIWAN) article copypaste

Just to let you know, several parts of article National Cheng Kung University appears to have been copied from here. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian again

I know you don't want to get involved, but you have to, since the only admin involved is abusing his powers. He is deleting masive amount of source information [[1]] when it is clearly not off-topic. When I ask sources for his big changes, he states he owns the page [[2]] and is not obligated to bring sources to the table. I try to negotiate with, try to work with him, but he continues to put me down [[3]]. It would be one thing if this was a regular user talking this way, but this is an admin. He is moving pages without discussion [[4]] and the madness goes on. The thing I'm must troubled with is that he doesn't want to negotiate. I have been verbially abused so many times by this guy in the past week, for simply asking sources for his edits. And now he is ready to put his master-plan together by moving Assyrian people page, despite the huge opposition to it in the talk page. He doesn't care, his gameplan is to wait until the opposition has died down and then suggest to move it again. You don't go to Greek people page and suggest to move it to Greek/Hellenics people. This guy has a complete monopoly on Assyrian related pages. Chaldean (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest going to WP:ANI and telling them exactly what you told me here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators without contributions

Hi. I've been reading the pages you gave me. Apparently, I came across administrator Praia da Lulz and discovered that she does not have any contributions. Does this violate any Wikipedia "rules?" And has she gained enough trust from the community? Is she abusing her rights? (She has also harassed me on my user talk page when I subjected it for removal.) Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That user is not an admin (and is now indefinitely blocked). You can see who's an admin and who isn't by checking Wikipedia:List of administrators. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for blocking user 71.202.149.252 for vandalism on articles Dalai Lama & Snowflake (plant) & misc.

I have a request for blocking user 71.202.149.252 for vandalism on article Dalai Lama. The edits appear to be 100% vandalism, evil faith. A comparison of the edits may be found here.

Secondly, this user appears to have added vandalism to article Snowflake (plant). A comparison of the edits may be found here.

Thirdly, I am requesting that a semi-protection lock for article Dalai Lama due to the article's long history from vandalism edits. Thank you. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The place to report vandalism is here.

The place to request page protection is here.

In this case, neither of your requests is likely to be granted. The IP you want blocked has only made two edits, months apart, and the Dalai Lama's article actually has relatively little vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I'll go there and report soon. BTW..What about my previous case when I was labeled as "vandalism?" Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I know. Thanks! Prowikipedians (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

Hi Kafziel! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

IP berserkergang

You might want to see this.--Berig (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think this should be taken care of for now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, spoke too soon. But I'm keeping an eye on it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to fellow admins

I have blocked the entire range of IPs coming from 123.19.0.0 for the next 24 hours - if this creates a problem, feel free to alter the range block, but please leave me a note here to let me know. Thanks. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department}

Another one? Joe0.com is registered by "John Smith" in some city I don't recognize, GA (Georgia?) Corvus cornix_talk 23:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for the help. Let's hope it's on its way to being settled - I'd rather not have to repeat all this tomorrow. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the matter! Hopefully, he will have calmed down when the block ends.--Berig (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have discovered another sockpuppet[5].--Berig (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My first hate articles.

Hello Kafziel.
Apparently, I got my first hate articles the other day: J. Delanoy and Template:J. Delanoy. These articles were both deleted (blatant attack pages) while I was asleep. When an article is deleted, is the text visible to admins indefinitely, or is it removed after a while? If deleted articles are not retained indefinitely, can you email me the text of the articles? I like to know what vandals say about me. If deleted articles are retained indefinitely, don't bother emailing me them. Hopefully, I will be able to read them myself soon.
Thanks for your time.
J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, yup, the text is available. I'll email it to you. Congratulations! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, man! I like it better when vandals actually come up with something original rather than just blanking a page or saying "you ****".

That article was so funny. I especially liked the part about me organizing the "Wiki Nazis". Must...resist...clicking...red...link... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's nice when they hate you enough to go the extra mile. It means you must be doing something right. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you meant to be tongue-in-cheek with that... In any case, I revert a lot of vandalism, and 99% of what I see is effectively the same. Quite frankly, reverting vandalism is BORING, so something interesting is a welcome addition to my uninteresting patrols. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Matasareanu.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Trolling

Dear Kafziel

This user continues blunt vandalism here [6], also here [7] and also removed vandalism warning from his talk page [8]. He also also investigated for sockpopetry [9]. He also vandalized my talk page [10]. He also is stalking other users and harassing them: [11] We need your help, I warned him on his talk page but he keeps removing the warning tag. Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already took care of it. Your best bet is to file a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI in the future. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Continues to move pages

Dab continues to move pages without any concent in the talk page. He starts the discussion at 15:44 [[12]]. 20 minutes later on 16:07[[13]] he moves the page. What kind of admin is this? It would be one thing if he was on the right side, but of course his edits are wrong. The article was about the Persian province of Athura. Can you please move it back to its original title before the discussion is over? Of course, dab won't reply to the talk page for another week. He is known for that. Oh, and this is the 4th time he has moved the page (That is titled now) West Syriacs. He has created so many redirects, that the whole topic is gone in a mess. Is there anyway to stop his rampage? Chaldean (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to the proper channels. I went to bat for you once, you disappeared, and I got nothing but a headache in return. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disappeared? Please take a look again, I was the last one commenting on the issue but once again no one took any actions and it went to the archieves. The double stanard here on Wiki is something else. The things some Admins get away with are far beyond believe. When I give him a very legit reason for his wrong-doing edit [[14]] he calls it a nomenclature-warrior edit [[15]]. How is it a warrior edit when all I wanna do is follow the guidelines we are given by the WikiProject Ethnic Group? Can you please lead me to the proper channel? Is there a admin-power check anywhere on wiki I can go to? Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you disappeared. You left me hanging for three days.

The proper place to file a report is WP:ANI, the same place as last time. See this page for more options. Good luck. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well just to let you know, I was so depressed because of the language used against me for days that I promised myself I would not edit Wikipedia anymore. Chaldean (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You warned him, he layed low for a little bit, and now is moving pages again [[16]] Chaldean (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Category

Deleted You're in Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles, which was moved to Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles, California; I couldn't fix your userpage because it is protected. I won't be watching your talk, as I assume that you don't really need to respond to me personally - I hope this isn't problematic for you. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Section of your userpage up for deletion

Hi Kafziel. I would like to inform you that another editor has nominated a section of your userpage (User:Kafziel#Things that make me laugh) for deletion, along with the pages of other users, and the discussion is located here. Your input on the matter would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Entry Request For Your Comments

Hi. I agreed with your comment in the Fox News entry about the inclusion of criticisms in the lead. While I don't think it is possible to build a consensus to get the info moved down into a separate section, I am currently building a consensus to at least have the "other side's" POV (critics that think Fox is relatively balanced) included with the current POV included in the lead to make the lead less one sided. I am not a fan of Fox News or of any particular media outlet, but the lead strikes me as very one-sided, and wikipedia should not be like that. If you want to, you can now go to the Fox News entry's talk page and "cast your vote" in the Request For Comment at the bottom of the page. It seems like the numbers are starting to favor the more balanced version of the lead I have proposed. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:74.73.18.198

Thanks for the help. Can you check the rest of his edits. Because it looks like he is on crusade here. I read a few of them and he added some mess to them. Igor Berger (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked hi edits and he is okay. Just a bit passionate about his editing. Also does not cite sources, so I will leave him a not. Thanks for the help, Igor Berger (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews

But you have to understand that when I went to one of the sources in that paragraph that said that Mizrahis were discriminated against in Israel, the page was not found. Should we have this sourxe in wikipedia. My source tells the truth. I said that Persian Jews support Israel and I provided a source which can be found. 74.73.18.198 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking on your talk page. No more drama...:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit

Regarding this edit, I ask what's the point of warning a user's third sock account who, goes on a POV rampage gets several warnings and eventually a block, takes another sock account, gets warnings and eventually another block, then gets a third sock account, what's the purpose of warning that user's third sock? And I'm not sure how the "released after block" is, but it was a blocked user that's editing, so I don't really understand how that applies either?

Not that this really matters anymore, the user has seemingly stopped after the page has been semiprotected, I just wanted to hear an answer from you. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses are not sock accounts. They're IP addresses. Most are dynamic by nature, and there's no point in blocking a particular IP after just one edit when (as you say) the editor can simply switch IPs and continue editing. Semi-protection is a more reliable solution when it's an ongoing problem, but AIV isn't the place to request it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not socks by nature, but they are socks when a user gets blocked and just switches to another one to dodge the block, per WP:SOCK, section "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". There's a difference between a user contributing through a dynamic IP address and one editing disruptively through one to evade a block. But yes semiprotection is a better solution if the user's activities are confined to one article, this time they were. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection

206.230.62.2 (talk · contribs) has made a request at WP:RFPP for the semi-protection on this page to be removed. IP claims to be Avriette (talk · contribs) and says that you know him/her. If you keep it protected, you might want to consider setting up a second page for new and IP users. Hope all is well, - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As it happens, I have been running mediawiki instances for work, and writing documentation for same. I guess I just was curious about what's going on here, and I find that the scenery is drastically changed. Not necessarily for the better... It seems that there's an even bigger bureaucratic overhead than there was before. As you're an editor I trust not to be ... well, I don't think I need to clarify that, let's just say I have respect for you. At any rate, I was wondering whether you could tell me what you thought of the place as compared to I guess a year or so ago when I pulled out. If you'd rather have such a conversation in email, I can be reached from my page. ... aa:talk 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear from you!

I do think you're right about the bureaucracy running amok. Everybody is so involved in circle-jerk debates that they use bots and templates for damn near everything else. It got to be a bit much for me, and my time on Wikipedia has been very limited lately, so for the last several months I've pretty much stayed clear of the politics. Every so often I accidentally step on a land mine, but we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here and that's still my main focus. For the most part, I'm blissfully unaware of any of the big controversies - in fact, the only WP: page I have on my watchlist is AIV. I leave the rest of that stuff to people who enjoy all the bullshit. So in that respect, I guess I actually can't comment on the state of things today, because I've been out of the game for a while. It was either that, or quit altogether.

I will say, though, that even though the community has changed for the worse, I think our content has changed for the better. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular you're working on that I could help with? In general, my interaction these days has been with topics I deal with at work and the other random articles I happen across. I noticed recently that ballistics information has been added to most of the rounds I was working on oh, maybe a year or so ago. And lots of the ships that didn't have images now do. Anyhow, pleased to see you're still around. ... aa:talk 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working on any one thing in particular, just sort of haphazardly maintaining the status quo. I don't have as much time for Wikipedia as I used to, so no big projects at the moment. Anyway, it's good to see you're back! I guess I can update my userpage... Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Vandalism Edits From IP Address 211.21.238.26

While I understand where to report multiple vandalism edits from this IP Address, I would like to request that at least one administrator follow-up this case. There have been many bad faith edits from this user and I believe that this IP Address should be blocked from anonymous editing. Does a one year anonymous-editing block sound good? Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been no edits from that address for weeks. I suggest you read our policy on blocks, because you're extremely reactionary when it comes to vandalism; one bit of foolishness and you're screaming for blood. Please realize that it takes an awful lot more than that to block a shared IP for an entire year. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that. I mistakenly identified the IP Address, although I know who the edits came from (the user was supposedly using a proxy server and created multiple accounts). And yes, it's quite darn funny to realize "one bit of foolness screams out for blood." Prowikipedians (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hi, I've been recently scrolling through Wikipedia and I've have been considering about having you delete my "block logs," since they have been causing problems and mistaken accusations when I applied for a request for VandalProof. As you may have heard, the Kaohsiung American School article has recently been undergoing vandalism for a week, until recently, I found out and reverted all the bad faith edits. This has been very frustrating to deal with, as it turns out, I have to manually revert all the edits. At request, can you delete my block logs for me? Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer to this is no, I can't.

The long answer is, I have no reason to anyway because your block was not a mistake and therefore the "accusations" are not mistakes. You were given a second chance, but that doesn't mean you never did anything wrong to begin with. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

? Perhaps this was over-judged? As you've have mentioned, "one vandalism edit and you're screaming for blood," does that make sense that you blocked me when you perceived my edits to be "unethical?" I do understand the Wikipedia policies, after I was unblocked from editing when you posted those articles for me to look at. Unfortunately, I didn't expect Wikipedia to invite noobs with a block and not a message on what-to-do. Before then, I never heard of any. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at my entire contribution history, if you wish. The edits I made to the Pope article may be misinformation, but clearly, my original intention was 100% not for vandalism. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me - I haven't blocked you lately. The block was justified at the time and it was for considerably more than just one edit. The fact that I removed it doesn't mean I was wrong, it means I was being nice. And clearly, in this case, the decision not to give you Vandal Proof was correct. As I've noted above, you are far too reactionary and would likely abuse the tool. I doubt the decision was made solely on the basis of your block log.

There's nothing you can say or do that will get your block record erased. If you doubt that, take a look at my own block record - I was accidentally blocked about a year ago (and it was a real accident, and the blocking admin apologized for the error) and it's still on my record. It doesn't matter - your block record won't be held against you unless you continue editing irresponsibly. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. I was very reactive to the block because of another user harrassing me. Most users, I see, are told at least once. I wouldn't abuse the tool, whether or not had I gained access to the tool. Had I done so, it would conflict with my moral ethics and religion. :) Prowikipedians (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, are there any ways to prevent users from editing "anonymously," or using IP addresses to edit (especially the use of proxy servers)? I've been dealing with vandalism from article Kaohsiung American School lately, which the vandalized article contains links to innappropiate sites that would be innappropiate for minors. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions like that are why you can't be trusted with VandalProof. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyways...I have been requesting for a page to be created (85°C - A famous coffee chain-store in Taiwan and China; similar to Starbucks), however, that hasn't been approved yet. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_Economics/Businesses_and_Organizations . Prowikipedians (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More than one edit? Clarify, please. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax -> Rezistenta

This page in a nutshell: Rezistenta should probably be banned for threats and continued vandalism. On the other hand, I am afraid he might carry out at least some of those threats. What should I do?

Hi, Kafziel! I am sorry to bother you about this, but do you, by any chance, recall a user named "Adrianzax," whom you blocked many times for edit warring and incivility on Romani people and Romanians? Now he has changed his username to Rezistenta, but his "contributions" don't seem to be getting much better.

While he was still "Adrianzax," he had threatened some other fellow Wikipedians via Wikimail. Two of these people and I sent a letter to ArbCom, per the advice of Jimmy Wales himself, but to no avail. Now he has been edit warring on Romania in the Middle Ages; it seems to have stopped only after I sent a message to the other user, whom I warned about Adrianzax's/Rezistenta's behavior towards people who revert him. (I didn't want to see someone else being threatened).

I think this situation is far too serious to be solved by a simple block. In principle, I think he should be banned, but I'm also worried about the safety of those he has threatened. I don't want him to get banned and then go off on a killing spree or something.

So, could you offer me any advice as to what to do? --Kuaichik (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he wasn't banned as Adrianzax then he's allowed to start fresh with a new username. I've looked at his edits and I'm not seeing anything overly disruptive, at least in the past few weeks. He's got an agenda, clearly, but that's allowed (within reason). Of course, I'm not familiar with any of the correspondence outside Wikipedia, so for all I know there might be something to that. I don't really have any good advice other than Jimbo's suggestion to contact the ArbCom. They tend to be pretty quick to dismiss a case with the slightest bit of weakness, though, so if you go to them for help you should expect to dedicate a fair amount of time to it. It's often more trouble than it's worth but, again, I don't know the whole background. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way... on a completely unrelated note... if you want to link to a category, just put a : inside the brackets. So [[:Category:Wikipedians]] becomes Category:Wikipedians. - K.

Hmm...I see. Thank you for all your help (and for the advice on how to link to a category)! :) --Kuaichik (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

I have been tired of reverting vandalism edits from Kaohsiung American School. I have tried to get the other administrators to create a block/semi-protect the article, however, that has not happened. May you take a look at the history page of Kaohsiung American School and semi-protect the page? Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already protected it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Angel Baby sample.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angel Baby sample.ogg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fenway Park

The user's vandalizing of my user page, along with some of his other edits (he just started a day or two ago) indicate trolling. And it's not a content dispute as such - he's making analysis that is not even covered in the citation. It's trolling. I turned him in to WP:ANI, and if it continues I'll turn him in to WP:AIV Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What he did to your userpage is vandalism. But it has no bearing on the content change in the article itself. Our policy clearly lists things like stubbornness and bold edits as not vandalism. A repeat of actual vandalism will get him a block, but that still wouldn't mean you're free to violate 3RR. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

An alternative, if he persists, would be to replace his bogus citation with a "fact" tag. And what if he starts reverting that? Speaking of which, I'm assuming you know he blanked out the 3RR warning on his page. Whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's okay - blanking the warning means he saw it.

There are venues for dispute resolution if it comes to that, but I doubt that will be necessary. He's only been editing for two days; everyone needs a little time to adjust to the environment here. This will blow over in no time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What would be more interesting is a site that actually has a comparison of the square footage of ballparks. I would certainly like to see something like that. But the citation he gave only gives the dimensions, and makes no claim of Fenway being the "smallest field", which I'm not convinced is true in any case. That claim, as the user himself states, is his "analysis" of it, and analysis is against the rules. If it goes to dispute resolution, his approach would be shot down quickly. Hopefully it won't have to go through that nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Fenway is the smallest park in the majors; not sure about the field area, though. Yankee Stadium may be smaller. A site comparing the stats would be good, but not necessary; if it can be established that the other fields are bigger, citations of the dimensions could be enough, until someone can come up with a source that disputes it. I'll see what I can find. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that Fenway's seating capacity is the smallest, but so far I'm not finding any information on square footage of the playing field. And the Astros ballpark has similarly cozy dimensions. Keep in mind that Fenway's deepest point in center is 420, and the so-called "average" right field distance is 380. So it is not at all intuitively obvious that it has the "smallest playing field". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if you're going just by dimensions, compare Tropicana Field with Fenway and it appears to be smaller overall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It's too late at night for math.

I hear the Rays' new stadium is going to be even smaller, though. If it gets built. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

They might as well play in a high school field. Then they might fill the place on a good night. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It turns out the guy was a sock (which I suspected but didn't say) and is now blocked indefinitely. [17] Semper fi! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel White

Good work! I nominated it for DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One of your 3RR closures is being cited as a good example

Hello Kafziel. There is a debate raging at WT:BLP on whether BLP reverts should be an exception when doing 3RR enforcement. The question raised by Kim Bruning was whether 3RR closers ever pay attention to the BLP exception. I couldn't resist answering the Kim Bruning challenge. Your decision was one of the two favorable examples that I discovered: the Alansohn-Xcstar case. I picked out this line as showing that you were recognizing the BLP exception: The article itself may not be about a living person, but the information Xcstar has been adding to it is. Since the information does not include reliable sources, Alansohn was justified in removing it. In going through old decisions it was surprising hard to find 'pure' examples where it was obvious the editor was blockable unless BLP reverts were not counted. Thanks for providing the pure example. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help! My feelings on the subject of BLP itself are mixed (I think its importance gets blown waaaay out of proportion) but as long as it's policy, we should certainly allow for it.

I would imagine examples are hard to come by because most of the time it's just someone inserting unsourced nonsense, so they would usually end up at AIV rather than 3RR. Still, I'm surprised there aren't quite a few more. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama semi-protection request

Article Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama has been vandalized repeatedly by several registered users very recently. Take a look at the history page -Revision history of Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I refute the accusation of vandalism.

My reverting the changes to the previous state was not vandalism. Had you have listened to ‎the show George Lamb had mentioned the page and saw it as fitting to the style of the show. ‎Taking these parts out are more a case for vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gognoid (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you mean "dispute", not "refute". The latter implies proof positive.

It doesn't matter what George Lamb finds fitting. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the meaning of refute is ‘’”to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion ‎or charge”’’.

I always saw Wikipedia as a place to display facts and opinions, not to oppress ‎people attempting to share knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gognoid (talk • contribs) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right - to prove to be false. You haven't.

Wikipedia is a place to display notable, verifiable facts that have been previously published by other reliable sources. Nothing else. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since my comments were “verified” by an extremely “reliable source” in BBC Radio6 music ‎could you convey a valid argument (for once)? This is laughable. ‎

Also, you can’t say “That’s right” when your initial argument is wrong. It is proof when my ‎statements are accurate.‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gognoid (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Just came across this -- Great stuff! What template is that? SQL^{Query me!} 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, glad you like it. It's my own invention, kind of a satire of one of Phaedriel's overly-friendly warning messages. The template is {{User:Kafziel/vacation|(duration)|(sig)}} Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is great stuff! I can just count the seconds before somebody is complaining about it at WP:ANI. But it is nicer-looking than the large red splotchy thing. And conceivably, it leaves the departing editor with a better impression of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Its great, def going at into my userspace template collection. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been using it for over a year, with no complaints so far. My sense of humor does tend to irk some people (like WP:GRIEF, or my list of things that make me laugh) but it's always been supported by the majority. If editing Wikipedia isn't at least a little bit fun, there's no reason to do it! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Hi again! Er, I'm not an admin and can't add these to your user page, so do you mind if I just drop them off here? [Barnstars moved to user page] For some reason, I feel inclined to say something more, so I'll just say "thanks!" once again :) --Kuaichik (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks! That was a really nice thing to see when I walked in. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

toilet paper

Why do you keep reverting my edit I'm adding to the article which fits under that section, do I need a reference or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankgrimes203 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion article

Hi. I'm requesting this article to be permanently deleted from Wikipedia. I believe that the information provided in Wikipedia can create serious problems, including the danger of loosing lives and law infringement problems. Firstly, Wikipedia articles are commonly located in the first or second display result in the Google search engine. Had someone really have thought of doing an action like that, the result will/may be horrific. Secondly, in many countries, assisting a person's death is most commonly regarded as illegal. If Wikipedia hosts this article, it means that "it supports it." Wikipedia has continually stated that the law should be followed "in a reasonable manner," especially when dealing with "copy-paste" issues and image copyright situations. Third. For what reasons would Wikipedia.org propose that the article should be included in en.wikipedia.org? Whether or not if it is considered appropiate, doesn't this article belong in a "WikiHow" or other sister projects? Please take action as soon as possible. The mission that Wikipedia is to distribute information in a meaningful way. In addition, if Wikipedia.org disagrees on removing the article, that would violate and contradict one of Wikipedia's/Flordia's (database location) policies. I request that this article be removed immediately before any other further harm can be done to the international community. Thank you. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at this: Wikipedia is not a how-to-manual. If Wikipedia were to continue keeping the article, Wikipedia would be contradicting itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowikipedians (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Three pieces of advice:

First: If you want an article deleted, make a request. You can't just ask an admin.

Second: Wikipedia is not censored.

Third: Don't bother. You can go through the proper channels if you want, but you will be turned down. I guarantee it. There's nothing wrong with that article that would lead to its deletion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is the content of the article, not how it is being written. It seems it's becoming a "Wiki-How," which violates Wikipedia's policies. But thanks for the advice anyways. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Sorry about all the formatting errors I kept making on your user page :-P --Kuaichik (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel White

On 17 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nathaniel White, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible TyrusThomas4lyf sockpuppet

Hi, I need some help with a possible TyrusThomas4lyf sockpuppet. Fact finder 1780 (talk • contribs • logs) is currently editing on Kobe Bryant. Judging from his editing pattern, I am quite sure he is another sock of TyrusThomas4lyf. This diff shows that Fact finder 1780 is making the same changes as another sock did some time before, here. Can you please look into this when you have time? Thanks in advance.—Chris! _ct 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

And a special thankyou for being no. 112 :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Breathing Room

Hi There,

I appreciate that you're trying not to use "copyrighted" material. But I am the writer director of both the film, and the text that I am submitting. I love that the text exists elsewhere, but I assure you that it is mine. I would love to submit it rather than come up with something new. Let me know if there is some way I can prove to you I'm telling the truth. All I can offer at this moment is my word.

Thanks,

Twomancrew (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Gabriel CowanTwomancrew (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you would go about establishing that. You may be able to find an answer to that by asking here (or at least someone will be able to point you in the right direction).

You're also going to need to establish notability, or the article will be deleted by the community whether it's a copyright violation or not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW ... I see that you deleted ALL my posts. That's just mean. I spent a long time doing those posts --- and there was no possibility for copyright violation on the other ones. Why did you do that? I'm here, trying to be a productive member of this community ... and this is how I'm greeted? I'm really sad that I spent so much time working on these things. I hope hope hope I can get them back. Please respond and let me know how I have offended the community. I understand that it appears as if I infringed on some copyright ... but I assure you, you are jumping to an inaccurate conclusion. I own the film. I wrote the text. I should not be punished. Please help me out here.

Twomancrew (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)GabeTwomancrew (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fulfilling the notability is not a problem. IMDB has these films up on its sight.

Why did you take down the Gabriel Cowan page?

The Geoff Cowan page is not a copyright violation. His resume is used at various places on the internet ... but it is not copyrighted. It's his resume for crying out loud. I wrote it with my father. This is very accusatory.

Please let me know what was wrong with the Gabriel Cowan page. I worked a long time to put that together ... and in an instant it was gone.

Thanks

Twomancrew (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)GabeTwomancrew (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't done to be mean - some of the articles were deleted as copyright violations and some were deleted because they did not assert notability. Everything that is written down is copyrighted, including the Geoff Cowan CV (which was copied word-for-word from a different site). According to our policy, that's grounds for immediate deletion. It's nothing personal.

I explained how you can get them back when I left that message on your talk page: You can request a review and the community will decide whether it was proper. If they feel it warrants another look, the content will be restored with no argument from me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that, according to the guidelines I gave you, being listed on IMDB is not sufficient for an article here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

I have to say that this is the absolute best indef blocked message i have ever seen. Hooray for the relaxing exit towards vacation, instead of the stop sign containing only harsh words! :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL Great block template

here, I laughed so hard. Great imagination :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to "followup" this user

Hi. I have a request to "follow-up" user "Coolgamer". As I have seen from his talk pages, he appears to be disruptive in his uploading of "copyrighted" images use that violate Wikipedia policy and has appeared to use talk pages inappropriately. Please follow up or consider a block. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I see you helped to deal with Prowikipedians vandalism. Thanks for that. I'd frankly like to see the entire subject in the discussion page on Suicide methods deleted for major failures of policy, namely, NPOV, be polite, no personal attacks, and be welcoming. To have someone start an entire topic of discussion simply labeled "I strongly dislike this article" and basically demand that it be deleted, then compare anyone who says otherwise to a murderer and shout at them is simply ridiculous and has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. I wanted to put in a vandalism review request, but I can't seem to find the form to place on Prowikipedians talk page. Perhaps you could help? Coolgamer (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I'll do my best to keep an eye on the situation. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I once saw "I strongly dislike this article" before on the discussion page on Suicide methods before I created it. In fact, it was more of a mere imitation. Post a message on my talk page if there are any concerns. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Marshall McGearty Lounge

Nyah. --dfg (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't say that rings any bells. Can't say I'm impressed with the current version, either.

You should note that, according to the guideline, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." As it is, it probably wouldn't stand up to an AFD. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that meets the criteria for notability. I'm content to leave it alone, but I wouldn't go bragging about it if I were you; someone is liable to nominate it. Or just delete it again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You should note that the CSD guideline recommends notifying the article's author when a notice is added, which you never did. Also, I had a feeling you wouldn't bother checking the sources or even the talk page which contains a third secondary source, to which I just added a fourth, and since incorporated into the article. The willful ignorance in your comments confirms my suspicions that you're part of the problem and the reason why this project will never improve past its current mediocrity. --dfg (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man, what are you looking for here? I deleted it a year ago, at someone else's request. It soundly failed A7 (and, looking at the deleted version, was extremely spammy as well). You should note that the users who mark articles for deletion are encouraged to inform the creators... there's no requirement for the deleting admin to do so. I'm not the one who tagged it. And clearly it didn't shake the foundations of your existence anyway, since it took you 15 months to notice.

I did look at your sources this time around, which is why I didn't delete it. Both of them were trivial at best, but the article as a whole makes a reasonable assertion of notability. By the way, sources posted on talk pages don't count; if you can be "arsed" to do something with them, by all means feel free (as I see you finally did, some hours later), but posting external links on a talk page won't save an article from deletion. Neither will self-important grandstanding.

Look: when all is said and done, it's still a crap article. You know it and I know it. It's five sentences long, and its notability (even with four sources) is a bit sketchy. As I said, it doesn't bother me; I just warned you that it might bother someone else. Save the arguments for the AFD, if it ever happens. Either way, I don't need to hear about it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as people like you, who can't even interpret a guideline properly, are the ones in charge, Wikipedia is going to remain stuck in second gear. You're an admin so I really shouldn't have to spell it out for you, but here's a clue: together the phrases "the first cigarette lounge in the country" (from the article) and "just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" (from the A7 guideline) do NOT equal "soundly failed". Your attitude that stub = crap is ridiculous. And spammy? I don't have access to the old version, but the one I found on archive.org didn't even have a link to the business' website. These are just your statements I'm dismantling here. There are better arguments to be made, indeed, if there's ever an AfD. --dfg (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right - it's five sentences of pure, unadulterated genius. I wish I could write such splendid prose. Congratulations on your truly marvelous accomplishment. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you gonna add a PWN userbox for stubs, too? Congrats, you've refused to address the substance of my argument, a tact often used by losers. If you really think this is about the length and quality of the article stub in its present form, you should be ashamed to call yourself an administrator of this thing. Then again, perhaps it's fitting. --dfg (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I already told you I'm not interested in any arguments you may have (and therefore am not interested in addressing the "substance" of said arguments), because a) I didn't tag either version for deletion, and b) the only action I took on it was over a year ago. It's too late for complaints and too late for arguments, so I suggest you move on. Congratulations on creating a stub on Wikipedia. It's a truly remarkable accomplishment. Really. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm so proud of it I've created and devoted a section of my userpage to a category of stubs and non-notable crap I started and then not worked on for months or years at a time. Oh wait, that's what you did. In my time here, I've yet to encounter a single admin who wasn't so smugly self-important that they could admit that they were so clearly wrong from the start that they actually apologized to begin with, instead of protractedly and lamely making excuses. Judging by your attitude, I doubt I ever will. People like you, who constantly belittle and undermine the positive contributions of casual editors like myself only reinforce my belief that this "encyclopedia" is a massive waste of time. I will move on, but re-creating an article that never should have been deleted in the first place by people who can't even understand the guidelines they helped define will be my parting shot, at least for a few more months. --dfg (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right - maybe the best way to fix Wikipedia is to show up every six months or so and act like a douchebag. Maybe that'll get things on the right track. Well, you try it your way and I'll keep doing it mine. We'll see how it goes. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowing that you're populating Wikipedia with articles on C-list actors, novelty cakes, children's toys, and military minge gives me hope for a better world. --dfg (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, not everything can be as notable as a smoking lounge that was open for 3 years. But I try. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

response

I left a reply to your post on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prowikipedians Prowikipedians (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)