User talk:Kafziel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Jun 2005 - Apr 2006 Apr 2006 - Aug 2006 Aug 2006 - Feb 2007 Latest archive

[edit] Your edit to Shite

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

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

[edit] Repeated vandalism

I saw you had blocked the ip address user:66.137.178.49 on March 22, 2007 for vandalism. However, I just noticed several edits from this address today, March 23. Just wanted to let you know. Notmyrealname 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They were blocked on February 22, so the block had expired. They've been blocked for another month by a different admin now, so they won't be editing again until April. Kafziel ^Talk 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it was a different month! I guess that's why you're an admin and I'm not! Notmyrealname 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

Dear Kafziel,

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

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

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

Hi. Not sure what you mean by this. Sockpuppets are not necessarily bad. Abusive or ban-evading sockpuppets can be blocked, but I don't see anything in your recent edit history to indicate that. As far as I can see, I haven't posted any warnings to you or anything. As far as I'm concerned, you're free to keep editing unless and until I see evidence of abuse.

You have the right to vanish, if that's what you want. Is that what you're requesting? Kafziel ^Talk 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:CroDome

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

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

[edit] Vandalism-by-image on "Pierre Trudeau", yet again

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

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

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] Invasion up for review:

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

It really doesn't matter to me. The article is quite different than it was when I first worked on it. I protested some of the changes made to it, and I'm not going to get into it again. The standards are no different now than they were then (it was only a year ago) so reverting to the original FA version should do the trick just fine. But you didn't like that version anyway, and I'm not interested in spending any more time on it. I have very little interest in the GA and FA process; a good article is a good article whether it has a little brown star on it or not. Kafziel ^Talk 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... You sound a little lack luster though Kafs - are you okay? And just so you know, this doesn't have anything to do with my objections at the article's original FAC. I'm sorta like that with my FA's too - I can't be bothered really editing them after they're featured unless some newbie comes & adds some nonsense... Anyway, I was told to tell you anyway. Cheers, Spawn Man 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not lackluster, just focused on other things now. Most of my time these days is spent blocking vandals and deleting nonsense and vanity pages. So when I do get time to work on articles, I prefer to write new ones or improve old ones, rather than getting involved in questions of status. I'm rarely in the mood for that anymore. But thanks for the notification, and good luck with the discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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

[edit] Deletion of Sensei's Library

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

Of course; anyone is free to offer his or her input in an AFD discussion. If we discounted editors based on alleged bias, all one would need to do to win an argument would be to accuse the opposition of bias. Both sides of most discussions have biased editors. That's why admins base deletion decisions not on the history of the participants but on the merits of the arguments. The "keeps" didn't offer any evidence of notability, so I deleted the article.

It would have been better to discuss the situation first or ask for a deletion review rather than just re-creating the deleted article. But your addition of sources may save it from being deleted again. I haven't checked them for reliability, so I can't guarantee that, but it will probably not be speedied because it isn't exactly the same as the deleted version. Kafziel ^Talk 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pikminlover/frown

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

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

[edit] Badagnani

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

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

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

You broke 3RR and will probably be blocked for that, although I'm tempted to block you immediately for this edit summary. I think both of you should be blocked for edit warring.

He may not be discussing anything related to the point, but neither are you. You deleted a massive amount of text from a guideline that has already been accepted by consensus; the burden is on you to discuss the change, not on him to defend the content. Kafziel ^Talk 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaneva

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

Judging by your user name, you should probably take a look at our conflict of interest guideline. In a nutshell, it says that if something is notable, someone else will eventually start an article on it. We have over 1.6 million articles here; believe me, not much is being overlooked.

Also, remember that self-promotion can often have unintended consequences; if you start an article, you have no control over its content. Any software or web content has critics, and they will be allowed to have their views represented in your article. In fact, the criticism may eventually outweigh the good points, and you can't just remove it or have the article deleted if you don't like the way it ends up. And since we don't allow advertising language or original content (including your own inside knowledge), the only positive points will be stuff viewers could find just as easily with a Google search. It's useless for promotion. If your business fails, this will be a permanent record of that failure. If it succeeds, this will be a permanent repository for criticism. Food for thought. Kafziel ^Talk 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

After creating a new page, what is an "assertion of notability" and how does one make one? I ask because a page a friend created and referred me to has been deleted with a note that it lacked an assertion of notability. THANKS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.198.124 (talk • contribs).

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