User talk:Kafziel/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Major edit 2 I think Zarbon actually stayed quiet for an entire week 3 Just a Kinky shout-out 4 Point taken 5 Date linking 6 Wiki-star sockpuppet accusation 7 Welcome to VandalProof 8 Marijuana Wiki 9 RE:Congrats 10 page link on officer, McCoy 11 neologism 12 THIS IS NOT VANDALISM 13 Congrats 14 Invasion: Featured! 15 Nothernmost Settlements 16 USMC Portal help 17 Absinthe FAC 18 Idit Harel Caperton 19 Iraq Body Count page 20 Re:River people 21 Marie-Chantal Miller 22 Spanish Habsburgs 23 travail en perruque 24 you welcomed me? 25 Reminder... 26 User:Cheesor 27 User:Wiki-star 28 Yellowcard 29 Hi 30 Not Sands 31 afd 32 CoolKatt number 99999 32.1 Investigation and Arbitration 33 Your edit to Colin Powell 34 Rubbish 35 Many thanks 36 Yep 37 Invasion 38 Thanks man 39 Sox/Yanks (alphabetical order) 40 Civil 41 My barnstar 42 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Velociraptor 43 Iron Mike 44 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 45 {{WPMILHIST}} 46 A short Esperanzial update 47 Cool head 48 Thanks for the mediation 49 Total Chaos at the Majin Buu Article 50 Wikipedia:Good articles 51 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006 52 Peace Dollar 53 Image Tagging Image:PerryReno.jpg 54 Recent AfDs 55 CoolKatt number 99999 56 Thanks a lot 57 Did you know? 58 Here's some Wayne County Rumble proof. 59 Vote requested for Exocortex AfD 60 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006 61 Yanks-Sox Rivalry 62 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections! 63 WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06

Major edit

Greetings to Kafziel. As you may know by now I have added more history and even some trivia to the Diamonds' page. Something that may concern you personally, I have elimated the "Due to racism frase. The Diamonds probably took more than their share of blame for doing covers. If you are familiar with the record industry, it would be extremely rare for the company not to tell the artist what to record, and this is still true today. This was the case for the Diamonds. They were simply doing what they were told and I feel this frase unfairly links them with racism. I also have notice the word "racism" is not mentioned in the extensive Wikipedia page on "cover version", or even on the Mercury Records page, where I feel it is more appropiate. Having said that, you certainly have the right to change it back. Since you ave been kind in helping me I felt you derserved a explanation. min7th 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the wording, as it was, linked the Diamonds to racism. But if you interpreted it that way, then others could, too, so it's fine with me if you want to leave it out. It was just meant to explain the record companies' need for those covers to be performed, the reason for which was trying to get around discrimination. To be fair, the Diamonds do pop up on nearly every web page or article discussing the unfairness of marginalizing black artists by using white artists to cover their songs in the 50s. If the article is going to be balanced, it should have a section discussing those criticisms, but you are right that it should be more clear that racism was not the motive of the Diamonds themselves. Kafziel 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a good man Charlie Brown!--min7th 01:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Zarbon actually stayed quiet for an entire week

Surprisingly, I haven't spotted any more obvious Zarbon socks since has block was reset on the 11th. It's set to expire today, so you may wish to keep an eye open for a possible return to business as usual. 4.226.60.187 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like, if nothing else, that whole fiasco brought him to the attention of a few different administrators, so hopefully I won't have to be the only "bad guy" and everyone can just focus on improving the articles. I will be watching, of course. Kafziel 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

alright, i am trying my best to bring things up for discussion before moving them. Kafziel, i really wish i would have your support. I mean, it's not much to ask for. Of course I am referring to Brendan Filone in the discussion page. If you could somehow help me by voting for him as a secondary character, I would greatly appreciate it. - Zarbon

I don't agree that he should be considered a secondary character. He was in two episodes out of several seasons of shows. I know you like the way he died, but I don't see it as particularly memorable; he went down without a fight (Moe Green was no tough guy, so the comparison doesn't really help). I don't really consider trading cards to be evidence one way or another, because entertainment merchandising is often way off base. Besides which, if you think he died in an excellent way, then shouldn't you be a fan of Mikey Palmice, the one who killed him? He's the one who shot him through the eye. All Brendan did was sit there.

What I do agree with is that the list could have been kept long without separating all the different sections into their own lists (which I mentioned to Opark77 while he was doing it) and I also agree that if anyone is to be moved, maybe it should have been the more minor characters and not the DiMeo family. But now that the work is done, it doesn't look so bad. It still needs a little cleaning up as far as the formatting goes (links should not be in section headings) but it's not so bad.

It seems to me like you're just looking to get your way on something, no matter what it is. If Terry Crowley can't have his own page, then you think Antwon Mitchell shouldn't, and if people vote that he should, then you think Brendan Filone should too, and people vote not to, then you think he should be listed as a secondary character, and if he can't, then you think the list should be formatted how you want it. No matter what, you're arguing about something. If it's not article content, it's image copyrights and sources. You lose one argument and immediately move on to the next one, without ever just trying to go with the flow and get along with people. Why? Kafziel 14:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

normally i'd agree with every single thing you said. but technically, and if for anyone else, i'd drop the matter very quickly. i pretty much am not following up on any other person as you can see. i let it go with margos and terry. The only person who completely and totally defines the sopranos in juxtaposition with the godfather is Brendan Filone. If you can help me this once, i will try my very best to comply with all other things. i know for a fact that i won't revert anymore. i am swearing to you. its just that i am a fan of Mr. Filone for 7 years now and nobody has made a stronger impression on me in the history of onscreen television. - Zarbon

If my support in making him a secondary character will satisfy you, then I will support you. That doesn't guarantee it will succeed, because it will probably just be the two of us against everyone else, but I will cast my vote for you. Kafziel 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a Kinky shout-out

I'm just writing to tell you you rule. Specifically, you rule for picking The Kinks' "Waterloo Sunset" as the #1 all-time greatest song on Rentastrawberry's top 10 page. Perusing Straw's archives, it looks like only five people have put "Waterloo Sunset" anywhere within their top 10: two at number nine, one at number four, one at number two, and yours at number one. Alas, I am the one who included "Waterloo Sunset" at #2, behind only The Undertones' "Teenage Kicks". It was virtually a dead heat between the two songs, really, as they are the only two perfect rock and roll songs ever, and if I could have, I would have listed it as a tie. In the end I picked "Teenage Kicks" on personal resonance, though that's virtually a dead heat as well. To conclude, anyone who likes "Waterloo Sunset" rules in my book, so...rock on! StarryEyes 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just had another look at my list, and I'm still happy with it, so I guess that means I put enough time into it. If I had another ten, I'd probably have more stuff from 1955-1965, the early days. (For example, when I was making my list I felt bad leaving Chuck Berry out, and it's good to see you remembered him.) Rock on! Kafziel 14:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken

I just saw a bunch of content being removed with the edit summary "reverting vandalism"... I was really more trying to explain why I'd reverted in error. Consider giving more descriptive edit summaries, I know you aren't required to, but it helps avoid misunderstandings when doing things like blanking a lot of content. --W.marsh 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Date linking

You've unlinked a load of dates in Thiepval using AWB. This means that they won't now format according to user preferences. I believe all dates should be linked so that formatting occurs. Cheers, Arcturus 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The only dates I unlinked were years that were there by themselves (thus linking them is pointless) or dates that would not format properly anyway. I am very careful not to unlink properly formatted dates (Like June 30, 1977) but things like November 2005 or simple years like 1918 are not improved by linking. See the manual of style entry, here. Kafziel 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your unlinking policy. However, if you check the edit history of the Thiepval article you'll see that three dates of the style 1 July have been unlinked. Arcturus 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry about that; I've gone back and fixed them. Kafziel 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star sockpuppet accusation

Hi, Kafziel. I am wondering if you could elaborate on the evidence by which you placed a "suspected sockpuppet of Zarbon" tag on Wiki-star's user page. I have answered a number of Wiki-star's questions at the Help Desk, and consequently looked at a number of his edits, and unless he is disingenuously running a complete "I'm a new editor" scam here -- which I very seriously doubt -- I think the accusation is unfounded. On the other hand, if you have a smoking gun or have had CheckUser performed, please let us know that too. Otherwise I think you should remove the template from Wiki-star's user page and from the list of Zarbon socks. Cheers, MCB 22:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; the CheckUser said it is likely not the same person, but by then he had already removed the sockpuppet tag from his own page so I just took him off of my watchlist. I didn't realize someone else put the tag back on. I'm still not convinced that it's not Zarbon, but I didn't intend for him to still be tagged. Not for the time being, at least. I'll remove it again. Kafziel 23:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote this before you posted. It may still be useful, I'm not sure.) I agree with User:MCB. I know nothing about User:Zarbon, but I have encountered User:Wiki-star at the help desk (he has made many edits there ([1]) - something that Zarbon has never done.) He has been here for two and a half months and made over a thousand edits. If it is a sockpuppet then it's a very elaborate one. --Cherry blossom tree 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Wiki-star has made a lot of edits. Without going too far into his history, I'll wager a guess that a great deal of them are image uploads without valid sources, edits to japanese animation articles, and arguments with other editors on talk pages. Evidently a lot of them are also help page edits, which stands to reason - Zarbon has never needed to ask anyone a question about anything, because he asks them as Wiki-star instead. Many of Wiki-star's questions mirror issues Zarbon has had; the two make the same grammatical and formatting mistakes, pick the same unreasonable fights, and show the same paranoia to anyone who questions their behavior. In my eyes, Wiki-star started that absurd and unheard-of habit of putting his user name before every post to try to make himself seem distinct from Zarbon.

Zarbon has shown how good he is at switching IP addresses and pretending to be someone he isn't and, fortunately for him, it's nearly impossible to get anything done around here when it comes to vandalism and sock puppetry. I certainly don't intend to hound Wiki-star about it, though, if there's even the slightest possibility that I'm wrong. And, in fact, Zarbon hasn't been disruptive for the past day or two, so hopefully the whole thing has died down. All I meant was that I'm keeping an eye on the situation. Kafziel 06:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Super -- thanks, Kafziel and Cbt. MCB 00:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

hi both, i originally didn't even know what sock puppetry was when i did it. but i didn't normally do sockpuppetry on purpose. i did it to avoid bans because i had no other way of editing. well, i am here to guarantee you that i am not wiki-star. i haven't opened any other user names, i only used different ip's to get around the problems. and as for my rfc notice, i am sorry for blatantly saying that i won't stop "vandalism" but as you can see, i did stop that. so for all intent and purposes, what is the point of the rfc notice. on another note, the discussion page on my user page is extremely long. i don't know how to minimize it into one place, maybe you can help me with that. i don't care to know how to do it, so when i delete the stuff, another user always puts it back, so i want to know if you can archive it all without removing it, etc. - Zarbon

You don't seem to have read the RfC; it's not just about Brendan Filone. It's about your rudeness to other editors, your refusal to listen to others (on Dragon Ball Z articles as well), your uploading tons of photos that violate copyright laws, and, yes, your use of sock puppets. Not being able to edit when you are blocked is not, as you say, a "problem". Not being able to edit when you are blocked is exactly what is supposed to happen, and using different IPs to edit is against the rules and will result in further punishments.

I have archived your talk page for you. Before you forget about the contents, however, go into the archive and read the messages that have been posted to you in the past. Take some time off from editing articles and read the guidelines that have been given to you over and over. Notability guidelines. The manual of style. Civility. Consensus. Read the warnings about copyright violations, and stop uploading stolen pictures. Learn about copyrights and the fair use policy. Be more considerate of other editors and listen to what they say on the discussion pages. Follow consensus. I will admit that at this point, you have a long road ahead of you if you are looking to be respected in the community. But it's not impossible.

Listen more, edit less. Don't just think twice before you say or do something. Think three or four times. A lot of your problems will be solved if you take the time to listen and learn. Kafziel 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

yes kafziel. i will try my best to redeem myself and i wholeheartedly mean it when i say it. I will definitely not sockpuppet or vandalize, and i will insert correct information with images. i will take all your advice and apply it in corresponding places. thanks again. - Zarbon

Welcome to VandalProof

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kafziel/archive2! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Eagle talk 08:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note, to contact me you need to leave a message on my page, sorry about that, but I can't watch every user page I welcome.

Marijuana Wiki

Hi there,

I see that you are a pro-Cannabis Wikipedian so I hope this will be of some interest to you.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Congrats

Thanks. All the best to you. ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

page link on officer, McCoy

did you look at the reason removing the link? there are references that dont have a reference page for checking the facts. look at the content on the discussion page, one person is calling another a liar and a troll in the link. is this how wikipedia works? you remove something without looking at the reasons!

I did look at your reasons, and they're not valid. If a page is messed up, that doesn't mean you unlink it from other pages. You are bound to find articles on Wikipedia that do not properly cite their references and contain arguments on the discussion pages. That is perfectly normal. The main Charles Whitman article has been a work in progress for quite some time, and the articles that it links to will eventually get their turn as well. Removing links makes it harder for good editors to find the page that is having problems, and it could sit out there forever without being fixed. Kafziel 21:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

your right! 'waterloo sunset' is my favorite two

Notice you're from Orange County, been there a few times when I lived in Mamaroneck & Rye in Westchester. Beautiful country, I know Bear Mountain is up the Hudson, crossed the Tappan Zee many times after visiting Sleepy Hollow, ever been in the "Old Dutch Church"? The grounds are amazing, but the company is, forgive the pun, "dead"! We have similar tastes in music, actually, let me guess, "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits is on your list of favorites. If not, it should be! Semper Fidelis!

Actually, Brothers in Arms didn't make that particular list because it was classic rock only, and calling songs from the 80s "classic rock" makes me feel old. :) It would certainly be on my all-time top ten, though. Semper Fi'. Kafziel 03:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, I have a son your age, he likes a lot of my old rock stuff. Of course, I must admit, all music comes and goes with each generation. Some songs remain classics though from all eras. Sometimes music that is classic gets updated, even into rap! I'm really more of a blues man myself, that's why I like Brothers in Arms, an ecletic blend of blues and rock. I still can't figure out why P.F. Sloans "Eve of Destruction" sung by Barry McGuire hasn't resurrected in these times, it was an anthem in the sixties. "This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine..........."

neologism

Hello there,

To start I just want to say that I respect you and all your wikipedia work. Now, I would just like to comment on your suggested deletion of my "weenis" article. Though part of it was written in jest, it is a true slang term of today and to many this article is a worthwhile read. Yes, it is a neologism but plenty of neologisms have articles on wikipedia. I'm fairly sure that the word "neologism" is a neologism itself. It is humorous but it is not a hoax. I urge you to reconsider your deletion request.

Thank You.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.108.144 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but even if it was a real word, it still wouldn't belong here; this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Kafziel 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT VANDALISM

You really need to check your sources. My edits to "The Shield" were not vandalism. Yours are. Stop this sh*t right now. CoolKatt number 99999 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooooooh. Or what?

Discuss your reasons for screwing up the categories or get blocked. That's really all there is to it. Kafziel 02:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[2] This help you? And this is no screw up! CoolKatt number 99999 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't explain one bit why you are messing with the categories. Kafziel 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WRONG. I am NOT MESSING WITH THE CATEGORIES. Now, stop calling my edits vandalism. CoolKatt number 99999 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is vandalism. So I ask again. Or what? Kafziel 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I checked my sources. 2. You'll see. CoolKatt number 99999 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, by this time you could have explained what it is you're doing in English. Kafziel 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I check my sources, and then I add the category based on my sources (in this case, IMDb) CoolKatt number 99999 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See? Now wasn't that easy?

Now all you have to do is explain to me why you added a bar to the link for [[Category:The Shield]].[3] Kafziel 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the main page in the category CoolKatt number 99999 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. See? Isn't it nice when you can talk like a civilized person? For all the yelling and threats on my talk page here, you could have been blocked already. Keep that in mind next time. Kafziel 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Looks like your user page has been vandalized, now. Welcome to the club.  :) Mangojuice^talk 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! I feel honored. All the vandal fighting I've done and it finally happened!

Thanks for the revert. Kafziel 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Invasion: Featured!

Well, I've been off for a while...just moved across the US and haven't been able to get around much online. Glad to see the invasion article got FA status...makes a guy feel good inside. Wanted to congratulate you on that, I know you put a good bit of work into it. Enjoy your break and take care. The Artak 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothernmost Settlements

Dear User Kafziel! Why did your remove the information given on the (abandoned) village Etah (NW-Greenland) which has been the northernmost village of the world up until a few years? Just because it is abandoned? Eureka also shows up with 0 population in this list... Greetings from Munich/Germany, K. Badenheuer

Sorry, it was unclear whether it was vandalism or not. In the future, it would be easier for others to tell what you have done if you fill in the edit summary field to explain your changes. I have re-inserted the information. Kafziel 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reaction. Maybe I should continue the work by writing an article about Etah. K.B.

USMC Portal help

Someone has decided our portal deserves to be deleted. Could use your vote here. If there are others you know that can give us a vote please put the word out. This is just like when they had to defend the Corps against Truman in 1949. Thanks in advance.--Looper5920 11:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe FAC

You have showed interest in the absinthe article and I thought I would let you know I have decided to put it up for Featured article nomination. FAC Absinthe -- Ari 00:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Idit Harel Caperton

Thanks for your comments on the peer review a month or so ago. If I can ever be of help to you, please let me know. youngamerican (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. The article looks great, and congrats on making GA status! Kafziel 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Body Count page

You recently reverted this page to a less complete, outdated and erroneous old version, calling the additions and changes I'd made "vandalism". This is nonsense. I added much more up to date descriptions from the project's website. The ones that were there before (now back again thanks to you) are outdated and _inaccurate_.

I only deleted one or two completely and demonstrably inaccurate claims, and a couple long outdated claims: that the Lancet study is "the official estimate" ("official" how?), and the Media Lens claim that IBC is a "Western Media Body Count" which is demonstrably false when looking at their sources list, which includes dozens of non-Western media sources.

Other than this, I left most of the content alone, just added to it. (The page looked like it mostly hadn't been touched since 2003 and some of the stuff there was clearly long out-dated). And I added a whole new section detailing recent criticisms and responses from IBC, which I tried to present in a value-judgment-neutral manner, unlike others who came after me and "vandalized" that section adding in their value-judgments about the IBC response (along with other false information).

The page you reverted to is far inferior to anyone wanting to know about the project than the one resulting from the changes I'd made, which is far more informative and accurate. I hope you'll reconsider this move, which I would consider more "vandalism" on your part than anything I'd done.

If you would prefer that wiki readers be misinformed by wholly inaccurate and long outdated material, by all means call my contributions "vandalism" and revert back to the misinformation. If you would prefer that wiki readers have an accurate and informative page to read, which actually gets the facts right, please allow my changes to stand.

I could not find a single constructive, unbiased edit made to that article in the past month. I did not, however, call your contributions vandalism; the program I used to revert the edits is VandalProof, but I did not issue any warnings to you or anyone else. I will take another look at the article and I may re-insert anything accurate and/or useful that I might have overlooked, but for the most part it was nothing but 30 days of catty back and forth between two anonymous editors. Kafziel 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. The edit I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_Body_Count_project&oldid=51660666

was not in response to any other anonymous user. It was an update filled with constructive and informative additions (current description from the IBC database, rather than outdated and inaccurate one; addition of value-judgment-neutral section on recent crticism, with new links to these pieces and IBC's response..etc.)

And I deleted a few outright false sentences, such as those I described earlier, and an outright false description of IBC.

I tried to make this as value-judgment-neutral and objectively accurate as possible. It was not in response to anybody in particular, just a long-outdated page which also contained inaccuracies. Someone else then came in and added (over what I'd done) biased value-judgments and catty attacks on the project and its "founder john sloboda" (again inaccurate, JS is only a co-founder and he didn't say what the anonymous poster added). I just reverted these back to what i had written, but i did leave a couple of the additions made by that person, but tried to remove the catty and factually inaccurate points.

If you really examine my original revision (linked above), you should see that it is 1) more accurate than the previous one you reverted back to which has several falsehoods, and 2) far more informative about the project.

To clarify what I had edited, the page you reverted to states: "For official estimate of number of casualties see Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

This is false an inappropriate for an IBC page. The Lancet survey is one study, and how is it the "official estimate"? Aside from that inaccuracy, this line is no more appropriate than adding "For official estimate see Iraq Body Count" to the wiki page on the Lancet study.

Next it has an outdated and false description of IBC: "This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation."

The IBC db includes no deaths from "inadequate health care or sanitation". It only includes violent civilian deaths. That phrase was on the IBC page for a time at the beginning of the occupation phase of the war, but it was changed and it is simply not true. So, I changed this to the current description from the db, which is accurate.

I also added one more stated "aim" in the "projects aims" section

I also added more (entirely accurate) information to the "Method" section

I also left in the previous stuff about "pro-Iraqi source, and the Allies" which makes no sense except in the context of the original 2003 invasion, but makes no sense now. The wording of that part really should be changed at least, but I decided to leave it alone.

I then added a section on "Criticism" which presented the facts in a value-neutral fashion. Critics have argued X. IBC has responded arguing Y. Then with links to these pieces.

I feel this vastly improved the page and made it more accurate and informative, while being un-biased. The person who came after me began with the opinionated and catty additions, ie: the IBC response was a "weak response", "the founder" John Sloboda smeared the whole anti-war movement..etc. etc.

I hope you will consider my original revision as a valid, informative, and unbiased update to the page, and not hold me or it responsible for someone else deciding to add opinionated smears afterward.

I'm content to leave it as you have it now. I still think the article has a lot of information it shouldn't—if its title is "Iraqi Body Count project", it should be about the project itself, not mirroring all of the project's information and conclusions—but I'm willing to let it go. There are certainly worse pages out there. Kafziel 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm not averse to changes. What parts in the latest one do you think should not be there?

I don't think their findings should be mirrored here; the body count section should be removed. The count itself is disputed, as is noted in the article. The rest of the information in that section (where they get their info, how it is organized, etc.) should be used as references in the article or discarded. The article is about the project, not to be used to reprint the project's results. If they are relevant to specific aspects of the project, they should be footnotes. If not, they shouldn't be there.

Again, I'm not going to insist on the changes, but I recommend them. Kafziel 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but note that the "body count" section was there before I got there, and was in the edition to which you reverted. Someone else put it there long before me, and I didn't touch it. And I'm not sure what the count being disputed has to do with it. Any studies of controversial subjects like war deaths are usually disputed ones, yet most pages on such studies tend to include presentations of their results. So I'm not sure I follow the reasoning.

I say again, I never blamed you for the content or accused you of vandalism.

I understand.

As for the other pages with body counts, most use official government sources. There are, of course, exceptions to that but, as my mother used to say, two wrongs do not make a right. I'm not interested in what inferior pages are doing in comparison; I am only interested in what will make a good article.

With all respect (and I'm not sure you even care to be discussing this any further) this doesn't make any sense. Any page that is itself *about* a particular body count would seem ridiculous if it doesn't describe the body count. That's what the project is. Another example of another Iraqi deaths study (again, not official or government source) is the Lancet study. The first thing on the page is its conclusions, and it goes on to give detailed descriptions of all its conclusions. You don't believe it should do this? Is it an "inferior page"? Should the descriptions of its findings be removed?

Of course, it could also be argued (and in many cases it would be true) that government sources are not to be trusted, either. But whether they are trustworthy or not, no one has more unrestricted access to personnel files, casualty reports, and front-line information.

Seems like a false dichotomy. It could just be argued that all studies into controversial matters as these are un-trusted by some, and that it is not clear what your point is about "trust" or why it's relevant.

It basically boils down to the fact that this article is not about the Iraq War, it is about the Iraq body count project. Casualty lists belong in the article about the war itself. If the results of this project are not sufficiently notable or trustworthy to be used as a source in that article, then they should not be here at all. Kafziel 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked and it is noted in the Iraq war article and the Iraq war Casualties article, along with other non-official/non-government studies, which is pretty much all there is out there on this topic. Your view here just doesn't make sense to me. The project *is* a casualty list. Sure, the Body Count section in the article could be condensed, but that's what the project is. You seem to feel the article describing a body count should not describe the count. This just doesn't make sense.

But this is not an article describing a body count. It's an article describing a body count project. Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 is an article about a body count, and that is where (if anywhere) this information should be. It's not about a website, it's about a body count.

When describing a website, it's not necessary to mirror the information from that site. The Wall Street Journal article doesn't list today's stock values. The eBay article doesn't list all the latest auctions. The Fantasy baseball article doesn't show the players' standings. Describe what they do, how they do it, perhaps why they do it. Don't list all of their results.

By the way, please sign your discussions by typing four ~ in a row at the end of your message. That will automatically add a signature with the date and time. Kafziel 12:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:River people

I've reverted the move, and applied move protection to allow consensus to form on talk page first. Cheers, Petros471 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Kafziel 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Marie-Chantal Miller

Of course I am assuming good faith. It is not an assumption of bad faith to list transgressions and misrepresentations there where such took place. ObRoy 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You immediately accused him of POV edits to the article, when he has done no such thing. As you can see from the discussion page, I didn't understand what he did, either, so I asked questions and listened to the answers. What he did made sense. If you think the "princess" bit should be removed, you are welcome to open your own move request. Kafziel 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In my understanding, it is POV to affirm a title of pretension to a pretender. The fact remains that he made an edit, namely a move, when a request for move was under discussion, and moved the article to a location which now says "crown princess".
Personally, I find it somewhat hypocritical at this your situation not to warn him being possibly with malice when immediately accusing someones of "move against agreement..." ObRoy 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

He explained that he moved it because it had been unfairly moved in the first place. The burden is on the first person who wants to move it, not on the rest of the community after it has been unfairly moved. Now that it is back to where it was before, a request can be started to move it to a new location. Kafziel 21:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I find something to be somewhat hypocritical. Anyway, the original page was at Marie-Chantal Miller (parhaps it would be fairest to return it there). It never was at the current location (which is POV in my opinion) more than three days (which took place in August 2005). Therefore I also find it rather incredible that you explain that certain move having been "unfair". ObRoy 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Habsburgs

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. You are welcome to check those uncles and nieces for example using [4] ObRoy 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This note was left by ObRoy on his first day at Wikipedia, as retaliation for my posting a warning to him. He seems to be improving after some further discussion on his talk page.

travail en perruque

Good evening. If you are interested by the subject, you can read [Michel Anteby, Sociology in labor] where there is few lines in english. --Barbetorte 16:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

you welcomed me?

you welcomed me! seems good but i have been here for a long time and then when i tried to add some of my own content, i registered, that was sometime ago but since that didnt work so didnt add more. I still have my right to say what I want and I did in there. I also have my historic study and Family legacy to backout what I claim.

That "welcome" was a notice that your statements will likely not be considered. You do have the right to say what you want, but the only past edits you have are from vandalizing the page in question. That would explain why they "didn't work" and why they will continue to not work. Kafziel 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cheesor

Yeah, I can't figure out what the exact policy this guy is breaking...but he's posted various angry things in talk pages. Most notably a conversation titled "DON'T POST THIS AGAIN OR I'LL KILL YOU" on the Halo 3 page. I'd post warnings, but I'm on dialup for a while and it takes me 5 minutes to load (or edit) a page...so I really can't do much on wikipedia right now. --Orion Minor 02:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiki-star

I'm having a problem with the user Wiki-star. now i wouldn't bring this up to argument normally, but this fellow is the same one that was suspected of revert vandalism on more than one occasion. he also does this ip dodging and sock puppeting, etc. recently, i made a visual adjustment in the buu page from dbz. now, regardless of what it is, it's a visual adjustment. this user keeps reverting and saying that he doesn't care if he's banned, etc. i don't have the power to enfore bans, so i was wondering if you could take a look at his constant revert. he says that he will just keep deleting the visual addition because he had added his own pictures earlier, regardless of the fact that my addition is a better representation. he just wants to push it because he wants his upload to remain. please help me out, you know that i'm trying hard and i no longer want to get into a revert war and this wiki-star fellow has been brought up for discussion on more than one occasion. - Zarbon

I appreciate your desire to avoid an edit war, but that article has far too many pictures in it already. 38 copyrighted pictures does not qualify as fair use.

The movie you are trying to add to the page is copyrighted as well. I do not think it should be there. However, if it is any consolation to you, I think most of Wiki-star's pictures will need to be removed, too. I'm not going to do it, because I have history with both you and Wiki-star, but I have asked for input from other editors on the situation so someone may be there to comment on it shortly. Kafziel 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• ah thank you. seriously, the response i got from him is that he will keep deleting it and that he doesn't care about vandalizing, etc. he thinks that he owns the page or something and keeps reverting everyone else's input. thanks again for letting other members see into it. thank you. - Zarbon

Yellowcard

Hi, there! I saw that you've contributed to the Yellowcard page. I've been working hard all weekend to get it into an encyclopedia-worthy article, and I think we're almost there!

There's a short list of things that still need some work at the bottom of the talk page. If you could take a look at it, maybe add more things to do, or clean up whatever you see needs work, I would sure appreciate it.

Thanks for your help. Have an awesome day! Cathryn 09:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Please see WP:CHU. --TKK3 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the account has been completely shut down, the administrator who did that can have the user page deleted. The situation seems to be resolved, but for future reference, contact an administrator directly instead of tagging a user page for deletion while using a different account. Good luck, and happy editing! Kafziel 05:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Sands

Not Sands because no invasion took place. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

afd

Thank you for agreeing to disagree, too. Behold, civility! ;) --Fang Aili ^talk 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

I noticed that you had a dispute with the above user regarding The Shield, and he was quite uncivil towards you. Currently, CoolKatt is waging a war against me for close to the same reasons. He has even threatened me with an RfC. If it comes to that, I would like for you to back up my claims of CoolKatt's uncivil behavior. For my side of our dispute, see my talk page. Rollosmokes 08:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously his request for comment didn't have the desired effect. He's really good at being totally obnoxious until he's about to be punished, and then begging for mercy very convincingly. He'll take the incivility right up to the absolute limit before backing down and claiming he won't do it again. But he always does. I'd suggest mediation, or maybe even a request for arbitration. Kafziel 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try the mediation route, but now CoolKatt has taken it to another level. He has filed a Request for Comment against me. (sarcastically) I've never been so scared in my life!! Rollosmokes 07:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks like mediation is your best bet. That should help cool things down. Good luck! Kafziel 11:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Investigation and Arbitration

Based on your past dispute against CoolKatt, I've decided to inform you of this:

On top of a ongoing investigation pending against CK, I have now filed a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration as one more attempt to settle this. I did this after learning that he filed an investigation request against me, and for me this was the proverbial last straw. Please feel free to comment on it. Rollosmokes 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Colin Powell

Your recent edit to Colin Powell 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. // Tawkerbot2 20:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a weird one. Obviously, Tawkerbot is a little tired...[5]. Kafziel 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish

I am tottaly outraged with this stupid site, cause every time i write an artice it gets deleted as vandelism when it isnt it is ligetimate information which shouldnt have been deleated and that idot Zandarx should get a life as he keeps deleting my artice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01sbrightwell (talk • contribs)

He's not an administrator, so he can't be deleting it on his own. From the comments on your talk page, it looks like it was deleted after an agreement was reached between a group of other editors. If you're unsure about the reasons, try to talk it out on your talk page (or his). Remember that vandalism will only lead to you being blocked. Aside from the disagreement you have there, you seem to be off to a good start. Don't let this one issue ruin your experience. Just be patient, and his reasons will probably make more sense after you've learned the ropes. Kafziel 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks

For reverting vandalism on my user page. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And some friendly advice. Don't reply to the opposes. -- Samir धर्म 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I didn't want to reply, but the tips page said you should. I agree with you, and I'll just shut up. Thanks for the advice. Kafziel 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my page too. The vandal was annoying me. --Zandarx ^talk 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to help. Hope things work out. Kafziel 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep

That is the answer to the question which you recently asked me. If you don't remember, well, forget it. I am deleting off of my page, just my preference. Thanks for the tips on the categories, I went ahead and made a pay subcategory. Looks like you do some good work here. Regards. Just for kicks, you may want to checkout Eddiedonovan page, cheers Isaac Crumm 04:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion

I made a request for Invasion to be placed on the front page, so maybe Raul'l put it up some time in the near future. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man

Dear Kafziel, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it. Really feel bad about the opposes on your Rfa, seemed quite unfair to me. Take care man and if you need any admin help, feel free to leave me a message or e-mail me if urgent -- Samir धर्म 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sox/Yanks (alphabetical order)

"The Yanks did dominate the American League during those years."

The Yankee "domination" of the AL is different from a direct team-team rivalry, true or not (And coming in second place is having been dominated? Silver medalists be damned!). The "Curse" and the Red Sox lack of championships is also different. For example, the 1967 World Series you could say involves the curse, but doesn't involve a Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. If it's all about championships, then 2003 is completely irrelevant because the Yankees lost, isn't it? If it's all about championships then games that have nothing to do with one team (1967 World Series, 2004 World Series, 2003 World Series) are still somehow related? It's team vs. team, not team shared statistics vs. team shared statistics.

The merits of second place are certainly debatable, but the 2003 championship isn't irrelevant in therms of the rivalry, because Boston beat the Yankees to get to the series. It might have been irrelevant if the Yankees were out of the running before the ALCS, but they weren't. The rivalry is much bigger than individual games; it does go to the record of each team. That's why Yankee fans don't feel the rivalry quite as strongly as Red Sox fans; they shrug it off, because the way they see it, they're still way ahead. Kafziel 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think "Yankee Domination" is an appropriate heading. Since this is only about the Red Sox - Yankees rivalry it is saying the Yankees dominated the Red Sox for 80+ years, which is simply not true. I think there has to be a more reasonable heading or that section doesn't need it's own heading to begin with.

Boston fans themselves have accused the Yankees of that very thing; of being an "evil empire" that buys world series wins and unfairly dominated the AL for a very long time. That's not something Yankee fans made up, that's something Red Sox fans insist on. It's a very important aspect of the rivalry. Calling a spade a spade here isn't intended to put the Sox down (and I don't think it does) - it's used simply to describe the atmosphere of the rivalry, and the feelings the Red Sox fans have felt about being marginalized for too long. Kafziel 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil

Good point, but remember, the guy is provoking those attacks, reverting facts which are 100% correct, so this gives anybody the right to call somebody a vandal idiot. Hope you agree but I understand your point about being civil, I've tried for last 2 weeks, he keeps on doing his garbage, looking for evidence that is only in his head... I am trying to be neutral to all the edits on wiki but of course certain things which can not be prooven, nobody can proove. If you are administrator give me your email.

My barnstar

Why thank you! I'm flattered! (And there are more photos to come. I really like Titicus Reservoir ... daresay I take that to picture peer review? Daniel Case 16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Velociraptor

Commented to your request. Would like to hear from you. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Iron Mike

Did you try to look at the Library of Congress or other such places (if accessible). Lincher 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I did try the Library of Congress, but the only thing they have listed is a guidebook to Parris Island - the "Iron Mike driving tour", named after the statue. It has some history, but the Parris Island newspaper story about the statue has everything from the guide and more. I own a lot of books on Marine Corps history, but when Iron Mike gets a mention it's never more than a caption under a photo. I reckon most o' them ol' soljers an mareens dint do so good on the reedin and ritin back in the twennies. :) Kafziel 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

{{WPMILHIST}}

Just a quick note: please don't subst: the tags, as they do get fairly regular updates. Kirill Lokshin 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! Kafziel 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool head

Look at the attacks that animal makes against me and you dont warn him, so you keep cool head!

I posted messages to both of you. Kafziel 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the mediation

Thank you for your efforts to keep wikipedia civil. The Kosovo war article is a problem, it needs cleaning and a lot of work and unfortunatly is often vandalized by annonimous users. But thank you for your efforts anyway. Mieciu K 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was frustrated because I saw no response from the wikipedia community. But now I'm feeling better so I will try not to respond to personall attacks. Unfortunatly the other editor concentrates more on personal attacks, than on argumentation and finding sources to support his opinions. I'm having doubts that he is a serbian nationalist/patriot because his actions looks very much like planned trolling. Unfortunatly we do not have a Serbia-related notice board on en wiki yet. Mieciu K 22:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Total Chaos at the Majin Buu Article

Well, Wiki-star is reaching that point where he starts to go out of control. I was hoping you or an administrator you know could help me out in talking sense into him. There is a straw poll going on at the Majin Buu article now. --Orion Minor 00:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the talk page is in flux; I don't see a poll, and history shows a lot of back and forth with deleted comments, etc. I don't really know what's been going on recently, but I will start keeping an eye on it. Kafziel 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles

I've made zero nil edits. That would primarily be User:Jeremygbyrne. Netscott 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize. The warning on your page was meant to be for 3RR. I will correct that. Kafziel 15:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm very aware of 3RR thank you. I think Jeremy is in violation though... Netscott 15:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No more than you; he has more edits to the page, but a lot of those are nil edits. Both of you have reverted three times. Kafziel 15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert my talk page again, once a message is responded to it can be deleted. Review the policy/guidelines if you must. Netscott 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is for messages, not warnings. Kafziel 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First you falsely accuse me, then you make a comment that I had already responded to here... what is the deal? Netscott 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not a comment. It was a warning. Different rules apply. I have posted the appropriate policy, along with a final warning, on your talk page. Kafziel 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so first you make a false accusation, then you fail to give equal admonishment (gee User:Jeremygbyrne's talk page is strangely devoid of a 3RR warning on your part). Can you not see the irony here? Are you assuming good faith? Netscott 15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you are citing a currently non-existent "policy/guidline" on my talk page? Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism In the future, don't do that per the the {{Proposed}} template:

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Shortcut:

References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". Netscott 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Assume Good Faith. It's always just a matter of time before everyone brings that up. They argue and argue and argue, and when they finally see that they are violating policy, they try to pull the "assume good faith" card. Well, yes - I did assume good faith. That's why I warned you about 3RR, rather than just waiting silently for you to make a 4th revert. And that's why I warned you 3 times about removing warnings from your talk page. I've made no uncivil comments, and no remarks apart from the standard warnings. I assumed that you were well-intentioned but reading the wrong policy. If by "false accusation" you mean the nil edits warning, I've already apologized for my mistake there. If you hadn't already removed it, I would have.

Don't worry about Jeremy's talk page - worry about your own. And don't imply that I'm siding with him; I haven't done anything at all to support his side, and he was the first one to receive a warning in all of this.

I thought the page I linked to would be more clear and easier to find, but if you prefer to see an official policy, you can always see the entry for "Talk page vandalism" at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. It says the same thing. Kafziel 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your warning was essentially nonsense, by that time you can be sure that both of us were very aware of the situation (particularly in light of Jeremy's point editorial comments). It's ok though I've followed your lead and done a bit of warning myself. Netscott 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait... if my warning was nonsense, then why did you just post the same one on Jeremy Byrne's talk page more than an hour after his last edit? It's fine that you did, but clearly you don't think it's nonsense (unless you are just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which I doubt). Kafziel 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe in equal admonishments for equal behavior, you failed to abide by this principal so I picked up the slack. Did you not get my message about being aware of 3RR before you actually posted to my talk page? Netscott 16:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not. I didn't get the "you have new messages" notice until I had already posted the warning on your page. Nevertheless, a record of that warning also serves to show other editors that you have already been warned, and should remain visible for the time being. Kafziel 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you save the fact that User:Jeremygbyrne made edits that can easiliy be viewed as to have been made to "fool" a person into thinking he made a revert. I actually filed a 3RR report (since removed) based upon his nonsense "nil" edit, so you can imagine where my view is on this. Your lame (unbalanced) warning only complicated matters. Netscott 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it complicates anything. The fact of the matter is, if you really want me to say it, that I was too busy reverting your vandalism (removing my warnings from your talk page) to worry about warning anyone else. I was able to move on to you because he didn't vandalize the warning I left for him.

I don't expect you to apologize for your mistake in quoting the wrong policy - seems like nobody but me ever apologizes on here - but don't act like it was somehow uncalled-for or unfair. You reverted just as many times as he did, as part of a content dispute, and you got the warnings you deserved. Kafziel 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should all keep out noses clean. I'm not going to apologize for removing your warnings. In my view you had your chance to do a proper warning, you failed and apologized so you felt you had to do some equating (re: Jeremygbyrne's "nil" edit warning) and so you slapped up an alternate 3RR warning. When what you should have done was to warn both of us equally for 3RR and additionally warned Jeremygbyre for his "nil" edits, you failed to do this and therefore you lost my respect. Simple as that. Netscott 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that you can list any number of excuses for not apologizing. Everyone always does. But whether or not you respect me has nothing to do with whether or not you were wrong. Kafziel 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace Dollar

Hello! I left a new comment on the article's talk page. I am cool with waiting, I'm a patient man. Thanks for the quick response. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and that aside, I took a look at your user page. Thank you for serving our country. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:PerryReno.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PerryReno.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BrownCow • (how now?) 22:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is tagged as public domain and states the source as the FBI's most wanted list. I'm not required to put a link to that. Kafziel 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

Oh, I agree; I'd rather have some sort of Cruft magnet for many things (hence the lists; they keep minor articles from popping up left and right; best to have 1 policy violation over 150); but at least with the Battlefront II information, it is minor enough to be easily converted to prose (that's why I voted delete). — Deckiller 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That was part of the problem before the lists. There were separate articles for Clone Sharpshooters, Assault Droids, etc. It was really terrible. Creating that list let us delete a whole bunch of awful fancruft, while at the same time keeping it off the main Battlefront II article. I really think the article has improved over the last few months because of that. But as I said on the talk page there, I'm not going to watch it anymore. In the time I've been working on it I've seen a lot of fanboy contributions on one side, a lot of spiteful maintenance tags and AfDs on the other, and only two or three people actually interested in discussing changes and creating a quality article. It's not worth the headache, especially since I don't think much of the game anyway, so I don't really care what happens to it anymore. Kafziel 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

I think we should blow up the current RfC against CoolKatt and start up a new one, because it seems the current one will not result in some kind of resolution (unlike the BenH RfC). CoolKatt is again labelling my edits as vandalism (specifically on WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) and WGTW-TV) and something really needs to be done. This time, I would like to be the one starting up the RfC. I may even attempt to use mediation as well.

Here's one more gem from CK, from WKBS and WGTW: "!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considerd vandalism. --" So, I guess that means anyone who removes HIS mandatory merge tags (or his worthless "trivia") is committing vandalism? You make the call. Rollosmokes 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't listen to Rollosmokes. He himself is a problem editor. CoolKatt number 99999 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A problem for you, I suppose. But he hasn't broken a fraction of the rules you have. I don't intend to start a new RfC, but after looking at your recent contributions and discussions, I still support my original position and would offer my support it again if need be. Kafziel 15:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Appreciate the advice.

-Amynewyork4248

Did you know?

On July 8, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Esopus Wars, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Here's some Wayne County Rumble proof.

Official Website. Now do you support me? Tom Danson 12:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, because the basic theme throughout all of this is that the team doesn't know what it's called. I'm sure that applies to the guys who maintain the website as well. There's no rush; it can wait until Wednesday. Kafziel 13:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And how does the team not know what it's called? It's pretty obvious to me that they'll be the Wayne County Rumble. Tom Danson 13:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was that obvious, how come you wanted to move it to Wooster GLIFL? Kafziel 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That was before I knew the team would still be the Rumble... Ah, forget it! I'll just wait until Wednesday or until I'm able to move the page. Tom Danson 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Once it's official, google results should expand and support the move. I'll keep an eye on it and move it for you once that happens.

By the way, you don't need to start a new heading for each reply on a talk page; you can just edit the section and add your comment to the bottom. Just use a colon for each indent, to separate your comments from the last person's. Kafziel 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote requested for Exocortex AfD

The Exocortex article is being considered for deletion. You may wish to share your thoughts on the matter. (Any reply posted here will not be reviewed by me.) --Amit 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 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.

Yanks-Sox Rivalry

Generally speaking, I would say that the hate between the two is even. I don't know why it says Boston fans hate more than Yankee fans because that's just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs)

Of course it's true. I really don't want to go through it all over again; the whole discussion is on the talk page. Even diehard Boston fans will admit it's lopsided, sources are cited in support of it. Essentially, it's similar to a rivalry between a bully and his victims. The kids who get beat up hate the bully, but the bully doesn't really hate the kids. He doesn't think too much about them at all, until it's time to beat them up again. One World Series win isn't going to suddenly balance the tables. That's just how it goes. Kafziel 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's true huh? Come sit in Section 39 with me and the bleacher creatures during a yanks-sox game and see what happens when a Red Sox fan enters. There's a source for you. Even when we're not playing Boston do you think they're not on our minds? They always are. I can't speak for everyone, but I hate the Red Sox more than anything else in the world and I bet that thousands of other Yankee fans would say the same thing. Who cares how many championships each has won? That is irrelevant information. In a rivalry like this there is just intense hate on both sides and that's all the article should say, but whatever...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs)

I'll keep my regular seats. Hey, I'm no fan of the Red Sox, but what it comes down to is that what you're talking about is original research. A discourse about how much you hate Boston would be better suited for your personal blog, or for the discussion boards at espn.com. Wikipedia doesn't accept first-hand experience or opinions as content for articles. I hope that makes more sense. Thanks for your input. Kafziel 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing things happen for years and years is called a primary source. But when you tell me the kids who get beat up hate the bully, but the bully doesn't really hate the kids. He doesn't think too much about them at all, until it's time to beat them up again, what kind of statement is that? That is the most broad, general thing you could possibly say. You can't just apply that to any situation like it just fits automatically. It's just not true man, not here anyway. You are generalizing that millions of Yankee fans out there only hate Boston when they play them. That is absolutely non-sensical. And just because we're not idiots and don't chant "Boston Sucks" at every home game?? Not a good reason if you ask me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs)

First of all, I didn't try to add my "bully" analogy to the article. That was just for the sake of explanation here, to sum up the discussion on the article's talk page. The statements in the article itself are all backed up by sports writers and cited facts in the references section.

Secondly, you're generalizing that millions of Yankee fans out there do hate Boston, based on the outlook of the Bleacher Creatures. What do we have to hate Boston about? Are we mad because they've taken so many of our great players? No, because they haven't. Are we mad because they beat us every time it matters? No, because they don't. Do we hate them because they've won so many World Series rings? Certainly not. So what's to hate? We have nothing to be jealous about. Sure, I get pissed when Yankee pitchers toss watermelons to David Ortiz, and I think Manny Ramirez is a scumbag, but there's no enduring animosity toward the Red Sox. I think Brett Myers and A.J. Pierzynski are scumbags, too, but that doesn't mean I hate Philadelphia or Chicago. And, no, the Red Sox don't even cross my mind if the Yankees are playing Toronto or something. Our record speaks for itself, so what's to be mad at Boston about? Kafziel 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The number one reason for me is their fans, and after being in Boston plenty of times and even spending a year there I got a nice dose of them. But I won't go into that. Overall that's what an intense rivalry is all about, being brought up to like one side and dislike the other. I guess it affects different people to a different extent, depending on how they were thrown into the rivalry. Sure you don't hate Philadelphia or Chicago, and why should you? They're in different divisions, there is no long-standing history between the Yankees and either of those teams. They rarely even play the White Sox. But every year the Red Sox play 19 games against the Yankees and battle for the division title. And maybe you don't hate the team personally, but you can't tell me that you don't hate to see their fans happy and their team doing well. All of the questions that you pose above obviously do not contribute to the hate, as a Yankee fan. The hate is something that is instilled gradually over the years as you become a bigger and bigger fan (starting from childhood). Maybe the Red Sox have a bigger percentage of hating fans because they have a smaller, intense group of diehard fans, but I do not believe that they have a greater overall number of fans who hate the Yankees more than the reverse.

You've just pointed out the difference: Yankee fans hate Red Sox fans, but Red Sox fans hate the actual Yankees. Red Sox fans hate Bucky Dent. They hate Lou Pinella. They hate Wade Boggs. Yankee fans don't hate Carl Yastrzemski. Yankee fans would hardly care about Boston at all if Boston fans weren't such dicks all the time. Sox fans hate the Yankees no matter what. Who cares? Let 'em. That's nothing to be proud of. Kafziel 16:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06