User talk:Kafziel

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

The links you removed

Sorry, they were there for reference. Zazaban 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving them to your sandbox. Kafziel ^Talk 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm apologizing, not complaining. Zazaban 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, I just figured I'd let you know where you could find them without having to go into the page history of the category. Keeping them in your sandbox will preserve them in the event that the category (and its history) is deleted. Kafziel ^Talk 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message. I am well aware of the sandbox. Yesterday I mispronounced 'oreo' as 'opeo'. I just added that to make my brother laugh. Are you enjoying your warmish winter? Benhealy 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'm starting to feel like a fool for spending all summer chopping firewood. :) Kafziel ^Talk 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guest stars

The thing is that, while major characters both define and are defined by the show, guest stars are not. Many shows have dozens or even hundreds of guest stars, and many such stars guest on many different shows. That's not really a defining characteristic. If I look at a category for Buffy actors, I expect to see the major characters, not that guy who played a monster in episode sixteen and died within the hour. HTH! >Radiant< 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, which is what I meant by not being sure that the Law & Order category's inclusiveness is a good thing. In reality, it probably renders the entire category useless. But, at present, Category:Law & Order actors does include that crazy amount of guest stars, so I'm inclined to follow precedent. It's a crummy precedent, which is why my "keep" is weak, but it's a fairly gigantic precedent nonetheless.

Still, maybe if we change the ones you proposed, we can change the Law & Order one next. Maybe that would be a good thing. I'll consider changing my stance. Kafziel ^Talk 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you want some more precedent, look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28 under "family guy actors", and at Template:Actors by series. >Radiant< 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me, I'll change my position. Let's kill that damn Law & Order category! Kafziel ^Talk 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Immigrants categories

I have the sense that we are both not making sense to each other on these "Categories:Immigrants to America" and "Categories:Immigrants to the United States" categories. I am willing to keep a category substructure that describes immigrants to North America but not the United States (in the sense that the United States did not exist or the region that the people travelled to was outside the USA's formal boundaries). However, the word "America" is clearly not understood by some Wikipedians (who are using it as a synonym for the United States) and needs to be changed. Can you suggest a compromise?

(At the very least, can be change Category:Canadian immigrants to America? In virtually any context, the use of "America" is inane in this category.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Canadian change. I also agree that the most populous categories will probably be "X immigrants to the United States", since the largest immigration explosions came in the 19th and 20th centuries. I'm not opposed to having U.S. categories, I'm just opposed to having them instead of an American category. Since U.S. is a sub-unit of America, the U.S. categories should be in a subcategory of the America category. On that same note, I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it "Immigrants to North America", if you think that will clear things up.

This is a sore subject for me because a) my English ancestors on my father's side were loyalists in the Revolutionary War; they were not immigrants to the United States, but to America, b) my Irish ancestors immigrated to (and fought for) the CSA; only after the Civil War did they become U.S. citizens, and not by choice. This is a particularly sore subject for me lately, since a tremendous amount of pre-colonial categories have been renamed "13 colonies" or "United States" this and that. (For instance, the Esopus Wars are now categorized as "Military history of the Thirteen Colonies" when in fact they were over by 1663, 100 years before the Thirteen Colonies were even formed.) History is blurry enough for Americans; we shouldn't be making it worse. I'm sure you know how sensitive the English are about the differences between England, the United Kingdom, Great Britain, etc. We should be the same way here. If we can leave the parent category as America (or, at most, change it to North America), I'll support the rest. Kafziel ^Talk 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We may be drawing to a consensus here. I just suggested using "North America" in place of "America" at WP:CFD. KTBotany suggested "the Americas" before my suggestion, but I prefer to narrow it down to one continent. (None of my ancestors came from Great Britain or Ireland, and all of them arrived in the United States after the Civil War, so I get to avoid many of these problems.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nomination of the category mergers/renames. It simply became too messy. I plan on nominating Category:Immigrants to America as Category:Immigrants to North America once the administration close out the nomination and remove the old CFM/CFR templates. I hope you will vote for the new nomination.

I also shuffled the category structure of Category:Immigrants to America and Category:Immigrants to the United States as well as some of the people in the subcategories. I think some of the "immigrant to America" subcategories did contain solely immigrants to the United States, although a few subcategories do contain people who immigrated to North America but not an area formally designated as part of the United States at the time that the people immigrated. Anyhow, if you see problems with the way I am shuffling articles or subcategories, please let me know. Dr. Submillimeter 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Kafziel,

I noticed you were behind the recent FA for Invasion. I too am working on getting Ohio Wesleyan University to FA status and I think I am pretty much there. I was wondering if you could take a look and make suggestions/edits if you have the time? I did like your Wikipedia Philosophy section on your userpage. Thank you for your time! WikiprojectOWU 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks very good at first glance. I'll be happy to take a more in-depth look at it within the next day or two, and I'll leave comments on the peer review page. Kafziel ^Talk 18:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel, are you still interested in helping me with edits for the Ohio Wesleyan article? I'd greatly appreciate it! LaSaltarella 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks great to me. I'd say the only bumps you might face will be people who don't like the high number of citations, but I don't think that's really an actionable objection. I don't see how citing sources thoroughly can really be construed as a bad thing. There's certainly no basis for it in Wikipedia policy. I'll certainly support the nomination when the article goes to FAC. Kafziel ^Talk 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

Thanks for the "heads up". -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Have fun! ;) Kafziel ^Talk 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for typo correction. I followed the instructions for submitting the request, or so I thought - how is it "malformed"? --Insider201283 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First, you never gave examples of what you're asking for mediation about. You mentioned pov pushing, but provided no diffs. How is one to know what the problem is, or when it happened, or where?

Second, you're pretty vague about what result you're hoping to achieve. "stopped, obviously" and a smiley face don't give a mediator much to go on. Fixing the first point will probably help with the second. In other words, providing specific examples will help clarify what exactly it is you want Will to do differently.

Hope that helps. By the way, you should put all that on the mediation request, not here; I know Will from around the "neighborhood" so I won't be involved in your mediation. Kafziel ^Talk 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd swear when I read the instructions filling out that form it said something along the lines of "be brief, the mediator will ask for info later". Damned if I can find it now though ... c'est la vie. Thanks. --Insider201283 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I saw that we finally got Invasion onto the main page. I submitted a request for it to be put on the main page a while back, but I never thought they would put it on after about the 4th month. You really helped that article move along so...congrats. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no! Main Page vandalism! I can't bear to watch!

We should start a pool on how many times in the next 24 hrs vandals will use the article to criticize the US and UK in Iraq. I'll take the "500" spot. :) Kafziel ^Talk 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 4 months! I don't think I ever had to wait more than 2 weeks for mine... Anyway, congrats as per above. I wasn't going to thank you as I forgot you were the other guy who helped get Invasion up there, but then I remembered your name, so decided to thank you after all. Sorry... So yes, er um, congrats. Hope you've had a great new year. :) Spawn Man 02:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On 9 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gathland State Park, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

indoholic

when i expressed my opinion in the afd, i clarified that i have supported to keep just indophobic, not indoholic. see here. Thanks. nids(♂) 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, but your "keep" is read by bots (and by those who just skim the "votes" and post accordingly). Kafziel ^Talk 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Looks fine to me, keep up the good work! >Radiant< 16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Panchayats

I have replied to your query on WT:INWNB. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

kosovo

Hi, Kafziel. I poked my head out from my book to be distracted by something, and happened upon Wikipedia. Therein I found your user talk page on my watchlist, and figured I'd drop by to say hello. To refresh my memory, I re-read your user page (it's grown! and there is a cabal!). I'm curious about your assertion that nobody speaks arabic in Kosovo. I read, a few years ago, a book by a Dore Gold, ISBN 0-89526-135-9 (itunes). He stated in essence that the Sauds were sponsoring Wahhabism throughout Europe and Subasia. Cited instances include Gibraltar, the conflict in the Balkans, and even the islamic Chechen factions. I hadn't read the article on him when I read the book, so I guess I didn't get (other than his pretty acerbic rhetoric) that it is more likely than not propaganda. However, it does seem reasonable that there would be arab-speaking (arabophone?) persons in the region. What am I missing? Ah, one last thing. I think you'll appreciate this edit, in the scope of vandalism that is, in fact, funny. Not surprising, there were some bewadded knickers from the edit. Cheers. ... aa:talk 11:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... that one took some serious effort and planning!

When I was in Kosovo there actually were some Arabs there, ostensibly as aid workers for the muslim victims. Some of our higher ups wanted us to make sure that's all they were doing, although their focus was more on preventing terrorist attacks on our forces or on the Serbs that were left in the region. Nothing ever came of it, though, and most of the time it just seemed like busy work. I suppose there must be lots of people there who speak Arabic, at least in the way old school Catholics speak Latin or Jewish kids learn Hebrew. Islam is very traditional and protective when it comes to the Arabic language and translating the Qur'an or the salat. But we were largely SigInt, so unless they were broadcasting their intentions, we probably wouldn't find anything. And we never did. Most of the time it was up to our Serbo-Croation linguists (and two poor Albanian linguists we conscripted last-minute from the Navy crew of the Kearsarge); the Arabic linguists (there were two of us) mostly spent our time at roadblocks, checkpoints, patrolling Gnjilane, and facing off with the Russians at the border. Not much Arabic to be heard. In some ways that was good—no news is good news, as they say—but it was somewhat anticlimactic after all the time I'd spent training. Kafziel ^Talk 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time at a local coffee shop writing. I looked around last time I was there, while taking a walk to get my head clear. There are a whole lot of college students there, and at least 20% of them were actually studying arabic. I was shocked. I live in DC, so there's probably a little bit higher than average motivation for it, but that's still a huge number. Regarding your time over there, yeah, it's too bad (with the caveat you mention). I suppose you wound up leaving right before you would have gotten a lot more use out of it. Interesting world. ... aa:talk 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my contract ended in November 2001. I was tempted to join back up after spending some time working at the Trade Center site, but my fiancee at the time (now my ex-wife; that'll teach me...) convinced me not to go. Can't say I miss most of it, and I was never really a fan of the language, but it had its moments. A lot of my old friends still work for NSA, and one owns his own translation company, but I was pretty content to have a (somewhat) normal life again. Kafziel ^Talk 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actors categories

So I'm wondering what your response is to the discussion for the Law & Order categories you posted on CfD. I'm trying to drum up support for deleting all these "artist categorized by their performances or productions" categories before undertaking a mass nomination. Do you still think that it is an impossible task? I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks, -- Samuel Wantman 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's impossible task; I think it's an unnecessary one. What purpose is served by deleting those categories? I'm not sure why you had those broadway categories deleted, but that certainly doesn't mean we need to follow suit with every other entertainment category. There's simply no need. If you need to "drum up" support for a nomination, then it's not a good nomination to make in the first place. XfD results should be a reflection of general consensus, not a reflection of campaigning and vote stacking. Considering the input on CfD thus far, a mass nomination would be verging on disruption.

Renaming the categories as "cast" lets us narrow them down to the main actors. That's perfectly sufficient. The contents of an article are not harmed in any way by listing the page in a few extra categories. And as long as the categories are as exclusive as possible, they will continue to be useful. Kafziel ^Talk 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We disagree on this. If you've read the discussion, you know my reasons. I am not attempting to "vote stack", I am trying to discuss an issue I care about with people who have many different opinions. If I were trying to "vote stack" I'd be talking with people who agree with me, not those that don't. Adding "cast" categories to main actors in TV shows is not perfectly sufficient. It is flawed. It leads to the mistaken appearance that being part of a TV show cast is more important that dozens of notable films that the same actor may have been in. Adding dozens of films for each actor is not only not needed, but detrimental. So I don't see a way out of this that makes sense short of removing all of these categories. As there are lists that handle all this information in a better form, I see removing them as win-win. The categories may be useful, but the lists are just as useful without cluttering up the articles. There is no consensus on this issue. There has been consensus to remove them from films and theatre, but no consensus with TV and film series. Trying to get this issue resolved is not at all disruption. I'm very sorry that you see it that way. -- Samuel Wantman 08:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

By disruptive I mean that since these categories were just discussed, it's disruptive to turn around and relist them just because you didn't like the outcome. I'm not suggesting you're actively vote stacking, although this note highlights your desire to game the system by hoping the community will be unsuspecting of a second nomination on the heels of the first. Certainly conduct unbecoming an administrator.

The renaming will reduce a tremendous amount of clutter if you give it a chance to work. Categories are neat. Lists are messy and easily vandalized or filled with cruft. If you disagree, that's fine, but consensus has been established for now and you shouldn't be seeking to immediately overturn that. If the changes we've made don't get things to improve after a few months, I might support deletion. But not now. Kafziel ^Talk 13:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Olompali State Historic Park

I just took a look at your WP:IPNA comment edits on this talkpage Talk:Olompali State Historic Park. I did a wikification of the article to bring it to a WP:CAL Start article status. If you look now at the talkpage, most of your suggestions are answered. I did not include them in the article as the wikification was a major edit because of all the sources, references, external links and slight corrections to the article. I plan on introducing one or two more things (from the sources on the talkpage) to the article. Of particular interest to the WP:IPNA is the fact from the National Register of Historic Places website PDF that this NR contains a petroglyph. (BTW, that article on petroglyph does not have your project listed on it).

If you could please read the full talkpage and place specific comments or suggestions, I'd appreciate it. I am not going to touch the talkpage for a day or two. Cheers, Ronbo76 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did some great work on the page and we cross-posted. I will take your suggestions to heart. Ronbo76 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like good work all around! Glad I could help! I've reclassed it as "start" since it is certainly not a stub anymore. I hope others will show up to give you a hand with the content (my expertise is more colonial-era New England area Indian stuff). Good luck! Kafziel ^Talk 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, I really like what you did with page! I may have to do a day trip there as I like the info I am learning about this settlement. According to the state website, Sir Francis Drake may have traded with the Miwoks as a coin was found and is in the UC Berkeley collection. Ronbo76 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (films)

If you want to reactivate the proposode guidelines on film notability, I suggest you add it back into the list of proposed guidelines at Template:IncGuide. You may also want to ask for opinions at the Village pump, Wikiproject films, or Wikipedia Talk:Notability. Eluchil404 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already being discussed at the village pump. That's why I replaced "historical" with "proposed". Kafziel ^Talk 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Geolink tag, Wikimapia and California State Indian Museum question

Hi! I learned something from you about the geolink tag and am using it in some of WP:CAL articles that were in stub statuses. I have a question about the Wikimapia. Is a screenshot of a Wikimapia map and/or satellite image considered releaseable to the Wiki projects under the GNU Free Documentation License? If so, this would really help our project in terms of being able to put quality maps of noted interchanges, desert locales, etc. I will post this on the California State Indian Museum talkpage. If you could answer me there, I'd appreciate it!!! Cheers, Ronbo76 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. One of the users in the WP:CAL says that much of the U.S. Government's original satelite imagery is in the public domain, so it can be used on Wikipedia. Now, if I could just get my mitts on those images. . . Ronbo76 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's definitely true. Anything created by the Federal government is Public Domain, as long as nobody else has done anything to alter it. Satellite images are usually fine, as long as they come straight from the source. Kafziel ^Talk 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

photo shop

If I knew how to photo shop I would do it. I hate to see these lovely photos go, but I certainly understand your exhaustion and frustration after so much work preserving someone else's photos. If there is any way I can help, please let me know. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. And I look forward to supporting you in a successful RfA sometime soon as well. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your landslide! Kafziel ^Talk 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

OK. I didn't make the connection. I'll fix.

I reverted Image:Palliyodam aranmula.jpg to a previous image that had the watermarked cropped off soi think it is OK. -Nv8200p talk 04:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Thanks!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

May want to see city's History of the City

Irvine, CA's official website History of the City states, Archeological research establishes prehistoric man in the Irvine area at least 12,000 years ago, possibly even 18,000 years ago. And, Gabrielino Indians moved into the Irvine area 2,000 years ago, establishing dozens of villages. One village was located near the present San Joaquin marsh and another near the San Joaquin golf course.

I just put that on the Talk:Tongva page. I did see any mention of it in that article or Irvine, CA's article. Ronbo76 06:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Access Genealogy: Indian Tribal records, Miwok Indian Tribe. Here's another one that in our Rohnert Park, California article. Another interesting reference on that article is that Native Americans comprise 5.58% as of the 2000 census. Ronbo76 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your November RFA

I'm not sure if I ever replied to your message in November about your recent RFA. You are no doubt aware that you got close to 75% support and the general threshold is 80%. A vote of 22/75 is going down in flames. A vote of 75/22 is a "Close but no cigar." The fact that you got so close suggests that you could make it in a subsequent RFA if you address the civility issues that were raised in that RFA. Let me know when you are ready to submit again and I will be happy to support you if the issues in question have been addressed.

--Richard 16:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I used the Hindenburg photo; it was more of a gradual descent into ruin than a spectacular crash. If it had been 22/75, I probably would have closed it early and used this one. :)

I might be willing to go again in a month or two. I got a lot of support after the last one and I had an offer since then that I turned down. Kafziel ^Talk 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for wikifying Jaswant Singh Khalra page

I appreciate the time that you have invested in wikifying Jaswant Singh Khalra page. Thanks! A. S. Aulakh^Talk 08:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism related reliable references

Hi Kafziel, I recently noted that you are reading/working on Sikhism related topics and thought to leave you some of the reliable resources/references on Sikhism.

1. Global Sikh Studies - This is one of the best sites I have been to. I have a lot of respect for the work that the member of Global Sikh Studies have done.
2. Sikh Sundesh - Another good reference source.

If you are interested, I'll leave more resources here for you to refer. In rush right now, Good luck ! A. S. Aulakh^Talk 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I look forward to using it. Kafziel ^Talk 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edituing the flag size

i left before i would complete my edit to the falg at the List of C-130 Hercules crashes page but thanks again for resizing it.User talk:Yousaf465

No problem! Kafziel ^Talk 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct copying from external sources

Kafziel-

Thanks for welcoming me. I was hoping you'd give me your opinion on something. I've found a (relatively short) article that has a sentence that is directly copied from an external website. The original source is not referenced (there are no references for any of the info in that section, actually). Further down in the article, the external website is referenced to support a specific fact.

How to handle a relatively small ripoff like this? Ok, I'll tell you the article-- it's Petroleum_jelly. Look for the word "rapt", and you'll see the sentence I mean. Flowery language to begin with, and directly taken from the source cited for the supposed "debunking". (I think those two sentences are very unsatisfactory; it is not clear exactly how Chesebrough's "claims" were "debunked".)

Thanks, Jlaramee 17:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly a copyvio. You have the option of rewriting the sentence to change the wording (and fix the tone while you're at it), or you can simply delete it. Adding quotes and citing the source could be a third option in cases where having the exact wording is absolutely necessary, but that's certainly not the case here. Since it's such a small change, you can certainly be bold and make whatever changes you feel are best.

You're also right about the cite not really being a good source for the claims being debunked. No evidence is offered there for the debunking; we just have to take the narrator's word for it, whoever he might be. Your best bet there would be to "comment out" the link with a brief explanation (add a <!-- to the beginning and a --> to the end) and then put a {{fact}} tag in its place. For an example of the syntax, edit this page and you'll see a note I've commented out by hiding it in those brackets. That's a bit more complicated than rewriting the other sentence, so if you want me to do that part I'll be happy to help. Kafziel ^Talk 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam warning

Kafziel-

Thank you for your message. I apologize for the inconvenience. I am new at the wikipedia and I did not realized my mistake. I apologize. Thank you for all your wonderful articles. [(User: nklansek )]

No harm done. Glad you understand. Kafziel ^Talk 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Bhai Taru Singh, was selected for DYK!

On January 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bhai Taru Singh, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your page on the main page. Would you considering joining WP:SIKH ?Bakaman

Sure! I'm no expert, but I'd be happy to help however I can. Kafziel ^Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST 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 February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sikh question

Hello Kafziel. I see you mentioned in your RfA answers that you are interested in Sikh topics. Perhaps you would like to tackle Gurmeet Singh Dhinsa? See here: User:Tragic_Baboon/List_of_federal_death_penalty_prosecutions_in_New_York . Let me know what you think. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks interesting and like a magnet for controversy. Right up my alley. ;) Kafziel ^Talk 19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you decide to write it, let me know if I can help you with sources. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yowza! That's a ton of stuff! Thanks for that - I'm just getting started in my sandbox, and I've been a little preoccupied with other things, but that will definitely come in handy. Kafziel ^Talk 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Heh, heh. Thanks for the Army Men Barnstar. I love it! --Jcbutler 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it! You're the first recipient! Kafziel ^Talk 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My optional question:

Thanks for answering my optional question on your RfA. However, you've neglected to tell what you've learnt from the experience. Sorry to be picky, but I'd love if you could expand your answer a little bit. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the things I learned from last time is to keep my RfA responses brief or be accused of trying to please everyone and campaigning for votes. I think what I wrote says what I learned, but if you disagree I can accept that. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Man you have changed! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who came up with that rule lol. I think trying to explain your rationale on RfAs is crucial & I'm not quite sure why everyone is so jumpy about it. In anycase, I've just read your Wikiphilosophies for the first time & agree with most of them. I definitely think you'd make a good admin this time round. :) Spawn Man 23:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lingam

Thanks for the heads up! I'd actually just encountered the 3RR concept on another talk page, too. I'm unlikely to break it anyway, as I tend to edit only two sessions a day. I'll make a point not to revert more than once in a session and I should be okay. :-) IPSOS (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff

OK, thanks for clarifying, and I've changed to neutral. To be honest, I probably wouldn't have opposed if I'd thought it'd change the result - I just wanted to register my disapproval, although you have now explained that there was nothing to disapprove of apart from an ambiguous comment. Sorry if I caused offence. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's okay; what's most important to me is that you not think there's some horrible bigot running around with the admin tools. Thanks for reconsidering, and happy editing! Kafziel ^Talk 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Lingam

On Lingam: Ok, I respect wikipedia's edit rules but when a faith is questioned by arrogant scholars and mischievous people over a course of time under different names it becomes difficult to make out the contention.I have opened a discussion and there are elaborate reasons to know what is the real reason behind it as researched by practicing and scholars. If it is defied by a someone who doesn't know India just on some of his offbeat research its gonna be thrashed! First of all its tolerance on people's part to keep Mornier's etymology there at first place! when so many people are more worthy of consideration, and someone adds a addon to it. Well lets discuss before changing and that applies to all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.85.192 (talk • contribs)

Saying someone's opinion is going to be "thrashed" isn't productive. The point of Wikipedia is that we don't need to be experts. If we waited for the experts, we'd never get anything done. So we research reliable sources and write the articles ourselves. You can never prove you know more about this than anyone else just by saying you do. You need to do the research and prove it academically.

Having said that, and having done a tiny bit of my own research, I have not found evidence for the claim that a lingam may be defined as a phallus. This site, which is linked to from Mornier's article, does not seem to say anything of the kind. So that would be a better course for you to take than going back and forth on the article itself. If evidence can be supplied that lingam can be defined that way, then it should be included. If evidence can not be found, it should not be included.

Remember that the evidence does not need to meet your personal standards. If it meets our verifiability requirements, it can be used and you must accept that. Kafziel ^Talk 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

After nearly unanimous support, you're now an admin. I considered waiting to let you accumulate 100 supports, but I figured it would be better to give you the tools more quickly so you can make use of them. And besides, what do the numbers matter? :) Anyway, spend some time on the administrators reading list and don't hesitate to ask questions. The community has placed its trust in you, use it well. - Taxman ^Talk 14:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, good luck with it all, just remember what it was like before you got some shiny new buttons!! All the best The Rambling Man 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congratulations, Kafziel! So close to WP:100. Ahh oh well. If you need any help with the admin tools, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Impressive how your last RFA was so contentious, while this one was unopposed. Well done! Second the condolences on the WP:100 - and everything the puppy wrote. :-) If you think what people said about you before you became an admin was rough, just think of what they'll say about you after you've blocked them for 48 hours! :-) Start slowly, take your time, make the undisputable decisions first, until you get more experience. It's not like you're in combat, when deciding quickly is important, here it's more important to be right. Remember that there are well over a thousand other admins who will do something that needs doing if you don't, while you'll be the one responsible if you do do something that didn't need doing. It's easier to fix vandalized articles than hurt feelings. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations per nom and Mousie. :) Enjoy the buttons and use them well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, I did not know you were running, I would have supported. Congrats. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ITs about TIME! :). Congrats buddy, good luck with the tools...use the wisely. ~ Arjun 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from beyond the Styx - crz crztalk 17:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)