User talk:Kraftlos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bellevue, Washington

--Kraftlos 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I went down the history of the Bellevue WA article and it appears that you were the first person to contribute to the history section. I was just curious where you got the information, because I was interested having the page referenced (and because I'm translating the article for the Spanish Wikipedia). Not that it's entirely your fault, because at least 20 other people did the same thing, but the page looks bad with no citations.

Actually I used the external links at the end of the page, which I added in at about the same time. I live there, so I'm a little familiar with the history. I'll add this to my to-do list, and try to get some proper inline citations added. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so do I. I couldn't find any of your history additions in those links, so am I correct in assuming those websites have changed? Or did you write most of it yourself? (I'm surprised that the city of bellevue doesn't have any history on its website). Also I found some corporate website that ripped the entire wikipedia article off and put it on their site.

I've been adding in some references (including a couple of history references) and adding {{Fact}} templates where they couldn't be verified. I believe it's okay for other sites to use the wikipedia stuff; that's what it's there for.

I've been a wikipedia addict for about 2 years, but now I'm really getting addicted to editing it.  :-/ Nice to meet you and hope to hear from you soon.

Yes it can be a big time-sink. :-) Nice to hear from you too. — RJH (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Mears man 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought your fixing my typos was fine, I'm not so sure that it's against policy at all. Best regards & welcome to wikipedia. Pete.Hurd 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lmperpr4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lmperpr4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 16/10

A tag has been placed on 16/10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition that has been transwikied and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Damneth! Procrastination!

So I'm finding that every time I go to do work on the computer I somehow end up back on wikipedia... What the hell! I can't get off this site! HELP ME ESCAPE FROM THE MATRIX! --Kraftlos (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Study at UW

Hi! I'm part of a group at UW in Computer Science trying to make editing in Wikipedia easier. I'd love to talk to you and other Wikipedians in the Seattle area about your practices. You can find my webpage at [1] and email me from there or you can post on my talk page. Kayur (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi I didn't get an email from you. At least I don't think I did :). I set it up so you can email me though wikipeida. If you have time I'd love to talk to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayur (talk • contribs) 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian View

This section is for the article on Sodom and Gamorah.

The Christian view of the passage similar to the Jewish view as the both use the same scriptural account found in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 19, God tells Abraham that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” (Genesis 19:20-21 ESV) While there has been some debate in recent days as to what exactly was their sin, it is aggreed that the city was sinful.

John Calvin, the protestant reformer and theologian, in his analysis of this passage stated that people of

So the wicked, after they have long securely exulted in their iniquity, at length, by furiously rushing onward, accelerate their destruction in a moment. God therefore designed, in calling the men of Sodom to judgment, to exhibit, as it were, the extreme act of their wicked life; and he impelled them, by the spirit of deep infatuation, to a crime, the atrocity of which would not suffer the destruction of the place to be any longer deferred.

For as the hospitality of the holy man, Lot, was honoured with a signal reward; because he, unawares, received angels instead of men, and had them as guests in his house; so God avenged, with more severe punishment, the shameful lust of the others; who, while endeavouring to do violence to angels, were not only injurious towards men; but, to the utmost of their power, dishonoured the celestial glory of God, by their sacrilegious fury. - John Calvin

• Introduce anglican debate, go to more traditional sources... bring in desmond tutu,

The Eiken pic

Thanks. I put-in a non-free use rationale, just in case. Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Elfen Lied

I agree. I think Collectonian is being a bit of a control freak on this issue. I listed the article as "needing attention" on the WikiProject Anime and manga page, seeing as we've been discussing this for a while. But yeah he's kinda talking like he's the lawmaker here. I'm working on it right now, but watch his edits. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on Elfen Lied for months. I'm trying to get it to FA, so that's a big blow. but at least we know where it's at. Hope you can help, seeing as we've both got experience. ætərnal ðrAعon 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reported to Juhachi, WP:3O and WT:ANIME. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Eternal dragon. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thanks for the compliment, but please remember we do have a civility policy, and calling anyone a nazi is a great way to violate it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting...--Kraftlos (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Colectonian is starting to become stubborn/a control freak here. It's obvious. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how one person would be able to delist an article. It also bothers me that I keep getting talked down to like a child, she keeps "reporting" our behavior (the fair use people don't seem to have any problem with what I was doing on the character list). I will say it again, she is being an edit nazi. (and for those who aren't so good with grammar, note the presense of the the structure "is being", which is distinctly different from "is"). It's not a personal attack and I'm not going to take it back. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but a single editor can delist a GA if it clearly violates the GA criteria (like the violations of #2 - referencing issues that I pointed out that have not been addressed during this whole mess), and time was given to fix them (I gave two weeks rather than the recommended one). Just as GA is passed by a single editor, it can be delisted by a single editor. Now, if someone disagrees with that delisting, the article can be brought up to Good article reassessment for additional views. Also, if an editor isn't clear an article should be delisted, they can list it at GAR. Hopefully that will be taken as the explanation it is intended, and not "talking down."-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this tone much better, thank you for the explaination. I didn't realise GA was such a loose system. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd say it was loose :) There is some oversight. Like doing retaliatory delistings or stuff can easily, and relatively quickly, be undone. Delisting takes quite a few steps for the delisting editor, as well, and of course must be explained, so its not something most vandals can/will do in a way that isn't easily detectable. It isn't nearly as extensive as FA is though, which requires lots and lots (and lots) of discussion to pass, and even more so to be delisted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

TQ Kraftlos for helping to improve my articles and for supporting

Please kindly look at the following expulsion of NOTABLE or LIST OF BURMESE INDIANS, even from Wikipedia.

06:04, May 30, 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Burmese Indians" ‎ (WP:PROD, reason was 'Poorly written, POV and notability issues'.)

IN ENCYCLOPEDIA, facts (correct with references are more important.) It is a SHAME that some Wiki editors are not interested to improve the poorly written articles. They just know how to delete quickly. They just seperated out the sections or combined (merged) into another, i.e. reshuffled and later deleted.

TQ again for supporting the Burmese Indian article. The POV is the excuse of some Burmese who wish to coverup their misdeeds only. I put in the truths with references.

Notability issue? They just changed to "LISTS" And Indian president's wife, famous actress, Burma Communist Party veteran founder, Prime Minister of Burma and Ministers under Military Juntas are not notable? (The Indians even mixed blooded with Burmese are no more accepted in Myanmar/Burma political arena. No more MPs, no more ministers, no more PMs all are prohibited. If the above Indians are not notable, delete all the biographies in WIKI.

Because of the bias and inefficient (but efficient in giving wrong judgements and punishments) Wiki editors, I stayed away from Wiki without contributing any more. I am disgusted with some of the hostile editors. My Pashus or Malay Muslims in Burma article was also deleted with all the excuses. It was first merged with Moken article. My Mahabandoola article was also chopped off although I had given proper and specific references.

TQ Kraftlos and some of the Wiki editors who help improve my articles. But I am sad there is no Islam Wiki editors to come in and improve or support my Islam in Burma articles. So I wish to say goodbye to Wiki. I am just writting in my blog,[2] what I want. Please feel free to delete my web address if it is not appropriate to mention here--Darz kkg (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Elfen Lied has been delisted from GA status

That stubborn Collectonian is throwing a tantrum again for not getting it her way. The past two weeks have involved us making several changes to the quality of the article, however she still seems dissatisfied and sent it to GAR, for which it was subsequently delisted. Something needs to be done, she's still the minority in this debate.

I've pretty much had it with her by now. Over the past two months, this article has formed 90% of all my Wikipedia work. Collectionian has obviously implied that all my work has amounted to nothign. Not only that, when she pointed out the problems in the article, several of us discussed it and worked on it. She's treating it as if we did nothing to improve it whatsoever. We added referencing, condensed the plot, used images only where appropriate, and corrected the tone and style. What more does she want?

This may get very ugly. I've worked very hard on this article, and I've had it with someone's opinion saying that my contributions are worthless. Heck, I may even leave Wikipedia, but not if this can be settled. ætərnal ðrAعon 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Elfen Lied

Re this remark in which you state that you wish I "would elaborate more in the reasoning on which specific criteria are not being met". I'm not sure how much more detailed you want me to get. If you don't think my notice of delisting was detailed enough, you could just ask me to expand further, though I thought I spelled it all out pretty well and its more detailed than many others leave. I point out the specific criteria failed, and even break down all the criteria 2 failings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just then, when you delisted the article (which I agree with); you didn't cite specific ways in which it failed to meet the GA criteria. You simply said that no one had addressed the problems that were brought up two weeks ago. It would be helpful to cite the specific reasons when delisting it rather than make people go hunt for the criteria, and in fact making a formal explaination is required. --Kraftlos (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with what you said on my talk page. For heck's sake, we can't read her mind, and she's not the only person in the world with an opinion that counts (although she's acting that way). Obviously, she ignored the comments I made on improving the article in Talk:Elfen Lied in the final days before she delisted it. Once again, the discussion doesn't entirely go her way. Yes, we do agree that it needs to be more manga-centric, but in your remark on my talk page, what are "points 3 and 5"?

Anyway, it's finally good we've got you able to make it more manga-centric. Apart from that, don't forget you can use dialogue (see the referencing section) as a reference. Either way, I never heard of anyone making a comment about me recently, but cheers anyway. ætərnal ðrAعon 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A formal explanation was given, and the very explanation I linked to above breaks down how it fails to me the GA criteria? In all of the edit summaries, I also linked to the full GAR page. Again, what more are you wanting? I give the exact criteria numbers, point to specific instances, etc? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. You didn't make any such argument when you delisted it. All that was said was "delisted GA per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment; no major work done to address issues posted about 2 weeks ago". An explaination is not the same thing as pointing to a 2-3 week old dialog and saying you're not satisfied with the changes that have been made. With regards to that dialog, The image issue was addressed right away. We're still trying to catch up on the balancing, and in the meantime some significant merges have occured in the perifiral articles. The article is headed in the right direction, I just don't see why delisting was useful or necessary. That is what the explaination should have contained, and it should have been posted in conjunction with the delisting so that it could be discussed. (again, I agree that it doesn't meet the criteria for GA.) --Kraftlos (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Addtionally, the GA criterion for images doesn't address whether the fair use rationale is valid or not; it simply requires that the images be tagged with their rationale for use. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, seriously, are you just not reading the link I pointed you to at all??? That was posted TODAY at the time it was delisted, not 2-3 weeks ago. I kept the entire dialog in the GAR to record the initial notice and discussion that followed, but the "Delisted" section was put in today in conjunction with the delisting at the time I delisted it. I followed all the proper delisting procedures. You seem to just be looking at the edit summary, which of course is not long enough for the explanation, instead of the actual final notes on the delisting that I will again link you to here Talk:Elfen Lied/GAR 1#Delisted, actually never mind, I'm fixed the GAR to just have today's remarks so its less confusing. Which, if you will please now read, you will notice doesn't mention images except to note they were fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry. I didn't see that you had posted that. I agree with all those points, though I don't think that's new information. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You actually agree with the delisting? That's a surprise. I thought we worked quite a bit on this one. Besides, I clearly indicated the improvements made since your recommendation, if you don't like it, but the majority is fine with it, that's your problem. Either way, you didn't even take it to GAR before it was delisted. I checked GAR almost every day, you said nothing. It's about time we stopped arguing and keep working on it. Besides, we filled the holes you were so keen to point out in your posts. Either way, I said it in my earlier post the improvements made and what still needs to be done. ætərnal ðrAعon 07:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the GA criteria #3 and 5 are being met. What I was fighting earlier was all the threats to delist from the project as a whole and to get the "image police" to crack down on the article; reporting us on various boards and such rather than talking about the policy and how it should be applied. What I'm really bothered by here is that no re-assessment discussion occured. There really wasn't any need to have it re-accessed before it was ready and Collectonian seems to think that it's our job to snap to her demands. We do this in our free time, we can't be expected to meet all your demands in 2 weeks (and to claim that your concerns were not addressed is bull, a lot of work has been done). --Kraftlos (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GAR discussion is not required for a delisting. I followed all proper procedures. I gave notice, gave two weeks for the issues to be fixed (when in reality, I was only required to give one), and delisted it when the article was not fixed within the stated time. Just as a GA is promoted by a single editor, it can be delisted by one. A multi-editor GAR is only required if someone disagrees with a new GA, disagrees with a delisting, or is unsure if an article should be delisted. If you honestly think the article is still GA as it stands at this exact moment, feel free to file a GAR to argue against its delisting. I'm confident my delisting would stand under such scrutiny, as none of my GA promotions,, failings, nor delistings has ever been overturned as being done incorrectly or falsely. Hate my guts if you like, but I do know what I'm talking about with regard to GA criteria, and the article does not meet them as I've explicitly spelled out in the final GAR remarks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's take this back to Talk: Elfen Lied. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about Yotsuba Koiwai assessment

I left a question for you about your assessment over here. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge templates

Please remember to add {{CharR to list entry}} where character articles are merged to lists — e.g. {{CharR to list entry|Last Exile}}. Regards, G.A.S 05:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea that there was a specific template. Thanks for the tip! --Kraftlos (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

{{English-language-voice-actor-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's ever played Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" ?

Hi, I'm looking for Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silpelit), but I can find any information, who ever has played it. If do you know any link to the information about performance this opera please drop me an e-mail at fazoo@o2.pl, because it seems till now, that nobody's played it ever. It's really important for me so I'd be thankful for any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.92.72 (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

--83.9.92.72 (talk) Who's ever played Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" ?

Hi, I'm looking for Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silpelit), but I can find any information, who ever has played it. If do you know any link to the information about performance this opera please drop me an e-mail at fazoo@o2.pl, because it seems till now, that nobody's played it ever. It's really important for me so I'd be thankful for any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.92.72 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Year 24 Group

I see you've added {{npov}} to the Year 24 Group. I was wondering if you could, per the template, add notes of what you feel is not neutral about it on the talk page, so that editors who come along later can know what needs to be addressed and when the dispute has been resolved. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mars Hill Church

Hi. After listening to a few sermons online this morning, I went to the Wiki page for Mars Hill Church to learn more about the new church in Olympia. I agree with a lot of your comments on the article talk page. So I took a crack at a complete redesign and posted it here. Please let me know what you think, and it is worthy of replacing the current trifle. I used Saddleback as a model. Take care. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your work; this looks a lot better. I think the page could still use some more sources, as a lot of what's on the page is still pretty close to what's on their web site. There was a particularly good article in the Ballard News-tribune about the church that I'd like to work into the article.

I think that the people at the stranger have an axe to grind, but I think that a controversy section would apropriate if it took on a more neutral tone. The previous authors of that section included references to some blog by a disgruntled ex-employee and even though I removed the unsubstantiated claims, the section still seems to carry that disgruntled tone.

Again, props for revamping the page. Maybe we could work on it a bit more and then propose it as a replacement to the current page. --Kraftlos (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for offering to help. I am noodling about how to include the controversy section saying something to the effect, "while the church has experienced meteoric rise in attendance, the church (and the administration) it not without controversy." But then again I wonder if it needs to be included? I am sure that Saddleback had growing pains and it's share of negative local press while expanding, and there is no such mention on their site.

There needs to be a lot more (sourced/cited) content. Is the Ballard Trib article available online, or perhaps you have a copy.

Perhaps include a logo or some images too? Bye for now. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be dishonest to not include the controversy, it has come up in the stranger, seattle weekly and the seattle times, and probably other publications. I think it needs to be included, however it cant be an attack on the church like it was. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the article from the news-tribune [3]. I think this is probably the most balanced treatment of the subject I've seen in a local paper. Here's a list of some other articles:

• [4] - interview with driscoll about mars hill.
• [5] - New campus in olympia
• [6] - Downtown campus opens
• [7] - controversy over "firing" of pastors
• [8]] - Protesters
• [9] - PI coverage of protesters
• [10] - general article on the church from 2005

Thanks for the links. Adding them to the page in progress. Check there for updates. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you need help!  :-) --Kraftlos (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. I've made additions to the sandbox location. Please let me know what you think. All that I was planning on adding was a section on the church community outreach activities. Bye for now. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 00:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Kraftlos. You have new messages at User talk:Geaugagrrl/MarsHillChurch.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

About that merging project

Before you go merging the SGT. Frog anime articles. Can I offer a little advice? You can choose to ignore it if you like, I'm just putting it out there so that you can consider it.

First off, I think if we put every character on the page that you are proposing, It will become too bloated. You could divide the merged articles by The Keroro Platoon, Hinata Family, secondary characters, and so one. Of course, since you haven't seen the anime this may be very difficult.

Again, feel free to ignore this suggestion in favor of you previous agenda. Just trying to help.

Chaoshi (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually what usually happens with these types of pages is that we first merge all the character pages to the character lists. Then we edit down the information to just what people need to know about the minor characters and provide a little more space for the important characters. Some of the most important characters might have enough notability to justify breaking off into separate pages, but it's ridiculous to have pages for each character. Either way, the pages are bloated to begin with and not all the information is going to be preserved, but the hardest part is going to be doing the merges, editing can come later. (Take a look at the featured list List of Naruto characters to see what the end result should look like, the list is assessed as a Featured List.). --Kraftlos (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

P. M. Pu

I have read that section and had it in mind. My position is that I explained, maybe too cryptically, why you are not interpreting it correctly with respect to notability and deletion. WP:PROF explicitly refers to google scholar in the section I referred to. I didn't want to weight down the afd page further, so I hope you don't mind that I came here. Regards,John Z (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. It looks like the consensus on the discussion is keep, so there's not much use discussing it any further. ^_^ --Kraftlos (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no doubt that it would be kept, but since you and Collectonian seem puzzled why the keeps are saying Keep, other than ILIKEIT, and some of the keeps find the deletes incomprehensible, I thought discussion could be productive.John Z (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Anime and Manga Biography workgroup

I notice that you seem to be sprucing up the Anime and Mange Biography Workgroup. I'd like to help, so is there anything i can do? Itzjustdrama? 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. The main thing I would like to see is simply more information about the people; most of them are stubs. My primary interest is actually in the area of English-language voice actors, however I think there are serious problems with most the biography articles. I agree with the idea of starting with Osamu Tezuka, then going from there; but if you are interested in anything specific, go ahead and work on it. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yumi Tsukirino

Hey, since you disputed the accuracy of the article, could you come over to the talk page and mention what, exactly, you're disputing? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly don't remember doing that. lol However, just looking at the article, the main thing I would dispute would be the notability, and the fact that all the info comes from ANN. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rating of List of One Piece characters

Hi, you rated B1 as passed. I ask that you reexamine the article for that criteria. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has a fair number of citations (though I always prefer more citations in any article), and I didn't see any {{fact}} tags or reference banners. Almost every character decription has at least one citation in it, if the article progresses with this level of citation, it seems like it will do fine. Do you have a specific problem with the citation? --Kraftlos (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a specifc problem. I simply think, that the article is nowhere near as good referenced as is due for a B-class article. See List of Naruto characters for a featured list on a similar topic for comparasion. It is of similar length but has ten times as many references. Also mind that "SBS questions" are not third-party sources. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the naruto page; I'm active on several rather messy character lists myself. In order for said list to reach FL it would need a lot more than what it has. However, I stand by my rating that this has enough citations to meet the B criteria, which requires citation of material that is likely to be challenged and use of third-party sources. I belive that the article in it's current form has met this standard. If you disagree, you can request another assessment on the project assessment board. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's alright. If you won't reconsider then so be it. I wouldn't wanna bother anyone else about such a minor technicality. BTW: Thanks for taking the time to assess. I know how boring (though necessary) a job it can be. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that the article needs a lot of work, but I think it has a fairly strong track of referencing; don't want to be too hard on something that is almost there. The organization of the article makes it very difficult to read, and the list seems pretty long. I'd help you out here, but I'm pretty tied up trying to put List of Sgt. Frog characters in order... what a mess! Any way, I'll back you on keeping that merge; the people you're talking to don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for that too. All of them (except for that one guy) appeared only after the merge had been made and discussed at length in countless threads. Only a bunch of fan boys trying to promote their fandom, while unable to tell an encyclopedia apart from a TV guide. Makes it hard to keep my temper in check on that talk page. List of Sgt. Frog characters is certainly messy. But heads up, it's in way better shape then List of One Piece characters was before I started editing it. Click here if you think you can handle. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Saint Seiya merge

Regarding this edit, I'm assuming that you didn't intend to propose merging the Saint Seiya article into the character list, right? =) I went ahead and reverted it for you. —Dinoguy1000 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah, yeah I had an individual character page that I was proposing a merge for and I must have copied the template into the wrong tab. Thanks! --Kraftlos (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother but the template was removed by another user from character list. I was going to undo that, but first you need to start a talk page. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? I think it's because Kraftlos added a mergeto tag, instead of a mergefrom tag. Whith a series like Saint Seiya, the character list shouldn't need to be merged elsewhere, and even if it does, it should go to the main article, not to an individual character's article. Once again, though, I'm assuming that Kraftlos intended to do it correctly (of course, I need to be careful of WP:AAGF too, at this point ^_^ ). ;) —Dinoguy1000 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a total accident as stated above. Was proposing merging Wolf Nachi into the character list, but slipped and put the same template on the Saint Seiya page as well (which Dinoguy1000 fixed for me). --Kraftlos (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rating of Talk:World Government (One Piece)

Changed your rating of that article to "redirect". Hope you don't mind. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I rate a redirect page? Doh! I should stay off wikipedia when I'm tired. lol --Kraftlos (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversial religious terminology subject

I find intriguing the indication on your User page that you enjoy articles on controversial subjects and have a special interest in articles on religion. Would you perhaps like to view the discussion on its Talk page about the opening phrase of Roman Catholic Church and about the note given as supporting it? Soidi (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it! --Kraftlos (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [11], Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 17:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [12] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One last vote please

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [13]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links to fictional elements

Hi, you seem to be removing a lot of links to fictional elements (Grand Line, World Government (One Piece)) that have sections in World of One Piece. I don't understand why you are doing that. You stated "Merged to main article" and similar reasons. Could you elaborate on those? It is my understanding, that linking to redirects, which in turn point to elements or sections of other articles is a good/encouraged thing. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The pages don't exist now, so I'm removing all links to those pages. If nothing links to the page, then it is clear for speedy deletion. If you'd like to use links within the page, that's fine, but it doesn't need to bounce out to the redirect page then back onto the page they were reading, it can just have a # link within the page. --Kraftlos (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand... You've been working under a false assumption. For example: You removed links to Grand Line from Nami (One Piece) and from One Piece, but the Grand Line article has been merged to World of One Piece. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(Update) Undid the ones done on pages not merged into for you. So you don't need to bother with this anymore. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to see how ridiculous these pages have become. I feel your pain. BTW, I plan on concluding the merge discussion in about 12 hours unless we get a suggestion that's actually viable from Matty or Gune (I swear Gune's argument is just "I dont like it! Dont change it!"). Sigh... --Kraftlos (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, consider this: I only started editing on a regular basis after I saw the state of articles on my favorite manga/anime. I'll soon have 4000 edits - and I'm still not finished cleaning them up. Way back, TTN started a big merge discussion, which ended without any consensus. That's why I figured, I'd have to do it bit by bit. And all the while Gune kept undoing my edits. The first time I started a discussion. It ended with a consensus to merge. He didn't care, and kept undoing until another editor reverted him as well and warned him about edit warring. Later I even had him blocked once. Waiting for days and days to get a consensus to overrule a single editor, who isn't even arguing, but only edit warring, was what I've been trying to avoid most of the time. He knew all along that I had policy and guidelines and most of the local editors on my side, but he tried to stall wherever possible, because that had worked the last time someone tried cleaning up. Just go through his contributions, my name is all over the place, so often has he undone my edits.

I had really hoped to get that minor list merge over with without this much hassle. Because the next merge is the one I've been working forward to for the last few month, the first and only one I expect to get real opposition, from more than only Gune and maybe Matty-chan, and the first to really need a strong consensus.

Ah, well. Sorry for flooding your talk page with this irrelevant stuff. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll follow you over to the next merge discussion. I don't know if its some macochistic hobby, but I like arguing these things lol. I was on the defending side of merge discussion 6 months ago against Collectonian and now I've done a 180 and become just as fanatical as she is... bah. What's next on the adgenda? --Kraftlos (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Celebrate!

I just hit 3,000 edits! YAY for me! --Kraftlos (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Elfen Lied

I actually had rolled back edits from three different editors at once on Elfen Lied so I'm unable to determine which edit was yours (and the IP address on the account making the undo edit is yet a fourth user). Unfortunately, when you reverted the edit, you restored everything, not just your edit.

To try to address your edit. The first edits were poor grammar choices and not really content addition, so I'll rule out that user being you.

That leaves me with: 70.72.151.132

Diferences between media

Lucy was changed in that she laughs and enjoys dismembering her victims in the manga, while in the anime her expression is completely neutral while killing.

Not necessarily incorrect, but this section is already completely unreferenced. To add something like this in, it would be better to cite the chapter and page in the manga and compare it to the specific episode and scene in the anime. If you add this back in, I don't think it necessarily hurts the section, but this section is going to need a major overhaul soon and it would be helpful to have references.

And 99.231.178.153

Plot section

the final scene strongly hints that she survives this and returns to Kohta.

This is speculation and would need to be referenced to a reliable independent source to be included on the page. This is what I was referring to as speculation. Someone tries to add something like this to this paragraph literally every other week (or to the List of Elfen Lied characters).

If you have further questions, feel free to ask. And please consider getting a username, it is much easier and more direct than remaining anonymous. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated Yu Ominae section

I was able to get some stuff to make a reception section. None on the character's origin as he was made in the '80s. Not much info available, even in Japanese sites. That's the best I can do. Ominae (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaotic articles categories

Hi, please take a look at my suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_8#Chaotic_articles_categories. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like the cat's got deleted anyway. Next time I'll try not to flood the page with uncontroversial CFD's. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback

Hiya. I've fulfilled your request. Please review WP:RBK or ask me if you need any help with the tool. Pedro :  Chat  12:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism :) Matt (Talk) 06:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Studies

Explanation was provided for the second attempt at this edit, so it's not clear why it was classified as vandalism. The deleted (and now restored) paragraphs are highly misleading, in that they inflate a minor disagreement within one edition of one academic journal to the status of a major debate in the field, which it is not. They then go on to state the the Birmingham Centre for Cultural Studies was closed in 2002. This is demonstrably false - the Centre had been dissolved into the Department of Cultural Studies many years previously to that department having closed, and the department had not exercised influence in the field for many years. The claim that the London Consortium somehow represents current cultural studies is again demonstrably false and amounts to thinly-veiled advertising for one academic institution. Without these paragraphs, the entry concludes with a non-controversial and largely instructive account of the current state of the field. JMPG1971 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Selected text was appropriately referenced and didn't resemble an advertisement, if you think there were POV problems, then you can note that on the page or make edits to the text. You cannot simply delete sourced content that has been on the page for months without explaining your edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fangæ. I have updated the name of the real sockpuppeteer, so I ask that you update the user pages according and maybe even move the page to the correct name.

Thanks, 10:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times

Hello, I am wondering why (specifically) my edits to the NYTimes article were removed. I read the article on Fox News, and in the introductory overview paragraph was a statement that read to the effect of "Fox News has been accused by observers and critics of having a conservative bias." I figured that it would only be fair to point out media outlets that had a liberal bias. I chose the NYTimes, as it has been criticized in the past for having a liberal bias. I put an analogous statement in the NYTimes overview section that stated that a study had been done by UCLA that determined that the NYTimes did in FACT have a liberal bias. I provided a source and a link to that source, whereas the Fox News statement did NOT have either. I fugured this would certainly be acceptable, but it was not. My edits were removed with merely a statement that said that my edits were "not constructive." What is the logic behind this? I'm getting the strong feeling that wikipedia itself has a liberal bias, and I am simply being given the runaround by being handed off to you. Please get back me ASAP. Thank you,

CaptainNicodemus (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion regarding this issue at Talk:The New York Times#Labeled as "liberal" in lede. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I made that edit while on vandalism patrol, so I'll grant that I didn't give very much thought, the idea that this is some sort of revenge for comments on the Fox News page kind of bothers me. As I recall the source that you use didn't appear to be very solid and the tone didn't seem to fit the rest of the article. This really should have been introduced on the talkpage, but it appears that's happened now. Anyway, I don't mind the idea of adding a section on bias, so long as it can be supported by reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a peer reviewed study by UCLA reliable enough? That's what my source was. The charge of conservative bias in the Fox News article has NO source at all, yet THAT is acceptable?? You have an uphill battle if you're trying to convince me that wikipedia has no liberal bias. You guys accept any sort of comment as long as it's anti-conservative, yet you refuse to accept a perfectly legitimate study that is "anti"-liberal. The charge of Fox News being conservative is allowed to stay in the article, yet it has NO credible source to back it up. My charge of The New York Times being liberal has an academic study to back it up, yet when I post it, all of a sudden people start arguing that it's not acceptable, their methods at UCLA are biased etc, and my comment is removed. All this, while NO ONE dares to question the liberal thinktank Media Matters, which is the source of most of the anti-conservative "facts" in wikipedia's articles. I would be convinced that wikipedia was not liberally biased if you allowed me to put my comment about the NYTimes being accused of being liberal in its opening paragraph, just the way that the Fox News article accuses Fox News of being conservative in ITS opening paragraph. Without this, I have no choice but to tell everyone I know that wikipedia is a biased source that is a joke, rather than a credible source. Please get back to me ASAP. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the fox news story you should probably flag it or edit it to conform to a neutral point of view, and if you think your source is good, I'd just try again on the NYT article. I'm not a regular contributer to either article so this isnt really a good place to address these questions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at Fox News and think I might be able to clear things up a bit. The statement in the lead of Fox News is not unsourced, it's just not cited at that point. The lead section of a Wikipedia article serves as a summary of the rest of the article. The two sentences you are referring to are a summary of the article's section "Allegations of political bias". Also, your addition to The New York Times has not been reverted because of the source being unreliable, but because "this highly disputed study is not significant enough for the intro". Note that the user didn't say, that the study was too unreliable to be included in the article at all. I suggest you put your addition back in, but as a separate section. Please also note, that the grand majority of Wikipedia articles have major issues. The few articles without issues (such as being biased) can be found at Wikipedia:Featured articles. These are the only articles usable as precedent. If no featured article on a comparable topic can be found, editors have to fall back to the guidelines, in this case Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I hope this was helpful. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Goodraise! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I already DID edit it to have a neutral point of view (3 times) and each time it was removed. How is FoxNews' bias worthy of being in the opening paragraph, but not the NYTimes'? That means there is a liberal bias on wikipedia's part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the lead section. Let me quote Wikipedia's lead section guideline: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." (emphasis mine) The FoxNews article has a whole section dedicated to different opinions on the topic of whether it is biased or not. The NY-Times article has no such section (yet). A section that does not exist can't be summarized. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On further investigation, it seems the article actually has such a section: The New York Times#Controversy. Not only that, but Wikipedia also has a whole article on the topic of Criticism of The New York Times. - This means, the proper place for your addition is that article. - As for the lead of the main article, it should summarize the articles controversy section (currently it doesn't do that). I'd also like to point out, that the proper place to discuss this isn't Kraftlos' talk page but Talk:The New York Times. And one more piece of advice: Don't run around crying "Wikipedia has a liberal bias!" Anyone can edit Wikipedia, that includes people biased in any direction. When reading Wikipedia, one has to keep that in mind. You don't believe everything you read, do you? -- Goodraise (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind hosting the conversation lol. But as I said before, I was on vandalism patrol, I never have been actively involved in the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 SLA Northern offensive

Why did you undone all of my edits that I made in the last 15 days on the article? You also removed a bunch of references I added and a lot of referenced text. What's your problem buddy? And please don't give me that story that my edit was unconstructive, I even added another reference in my last edit before you reverted me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited that article before, so you must have me mistaken for someone else. As far the sources you were using: TamilNet is considered a shakey source by the Associated Press [[14]]. I was unable to determine anything about tamileelamnews, so I have no way of determine it's reliability either. The other sources you used seemed to be fine, but two sources mentioned earlier seem to be operating from a single point of view. I think it would be better to have more solid sources in the article; preferable one that doesn't deal with a single subject, one that's more international in its approach and that doesn't seem to be directly invested in the conflict. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Man ... critics' reception

Hey Kraftlos,

I noticed that you reverted the Harvard Man entry, suggesting that my edits were not constructive. They may not have been optimally worded, but I feel that the version of the article currently posted reflects a conventional wisdom that is simply false. Harvard Man was a commercial flop, but some critics had much enthusiasm for it. Look at the entry on metacritic if you don't believe me.

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/harvardman

I would be happy to work with you to make a more accurate version of the page that is constructive and properly worded. Do you have any suggestions for editing the page to reflect the enthusiasm of some critics?

Longshot.222 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that it was a bad movie; Roeper said "This movie is so bad, that it's almost worth seeing because it's so bad.". The article adequately conveyed it's flat-line reception from critics; but you cant insert a point of view about the quality of the movie into the article, the article needs to remain from a neutral point of view. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kraftlos, you are all about deleting the contributions of others, and not so much about listening to what they have to say. Please do the following: 1. Go to the link I posted. 2. Note that the claim I made concerning the critical response to the film was correct. 3. Revise your previous claims in light of this. 4. Note that I was not deviating from neutrality in my comments, but correcting an incorrect (though widely held) belief concerning critical reception to the film.

I await your response, and hope it is a bit more constructive this time.

Longshot.222 (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it pretty insulting that you assume that I didn't view the link before commenting on it (or that I'm all about removing the work of others). As I have said, yes, its a bad movie; it was a commercial failure. The article already said that. If you're going to state that it's a commercial failure in the introduction, it must be mentioned elsewhere in the article and be backed up with a reliable source that states that per WP:V. And dont patronize me giving me a to-do list. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want this to be a conversation about our feelings. I only want to make the Harvard Man entry as good as possible. On that goal I hope we can agree. The Harvard Man entry states that the film "received little critical or popular acclaim".

But Peter Travers of Rolling Stone says "Harvard Man is something rare and riveting: a wild ride that relies on more than special effects".

Roger Ebert gave the film three stars.

A.O. Scott of the New York Times calls it "an earnest coming-of-age story, and a cautionary tale about the perils of drug use, gambling and existentialist philosophy".

These are all verifiable sources. This is not a "flat-line reception from critics", as you claim. Sooner or later, the page should reflect the enthusiasm of the aforementioned critics. What is the best way to include their enthusiasm along with the disdain of other critics?

Longshot.222 (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You should create a reception section, that could briefly talk about critical reception and maybe include blockquotes from a critic on each side. Generally, Wikipedia articles try to keep the intro clear of footnotes, but it just didn't seem approprate to put into the introduction if there's no other mention of the critics in the article. And from metacritic and rottentomatoes, I didn't get the impression that any critic was ecstatic about the movie, just that somet thought that it stunk and some thought it was alright. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting that vandalism to my Talk page. You got it so quick i accidentally clicked on your reversal and had to reverse myself. Ulric1313 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm making edits faster than bots. I guess that means I spend to much time on here.  ;-) --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Listen I did not vandilize the Long Island Iced Tea page. It is a fact with the updated history of who actually invented the drink and it can be backed up by a new book coming out. Please stop editing my edits without knowing the facts and sending me warnings. THANK YOU KINDLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.213.79 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a reference to a reliable source that states the bartender as the inventor, if you wish to change the page, you're going to have to find a reliable source that aggrees with you. Also, you are now in violation of the three revert rule. You need to take this to a talk page instead of edit warring. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The source that was linked to that inventor of the drink is someone who claims to have invented it but actually did not. References can and will be provided if I was given a chance to actually finish before my work was deleted and warnings were sent to me over and over. Geesh how did you even find that page to edit it so quick? Please find some other article to focus on. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.213.79 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You need to have the reference available when you make the change, or it doesn't go up. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

HOW DO I

hi, how do i edit my user page description, I want to take it off and make it simple. every time I click on edit this page, it pops up with a prompt with some php files edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalnewyork (talk • contribs) 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you edit User:Alalnewyork the URL automatically switches to the long form: index.php?title=User:Alalnewyork&action=edit. This is the same page, its just that wikipedia isn't masking the file name. If you aren't getting a normal edit screen though, you might be having technical problems. It should look exactly the same as editing this page, or any other page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, your userpage really shouldn't contain addresses or phone numbers. The page should really be about you, your interests, and how they relate to wikipedia. Wikipedia not a directory or a social networking site. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dogg

dont messs with my eddits.

Your edit wasn't helpful, so it was reverted. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

its the truth

racism is badddd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.114.105 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed not?

Racism and nordocentrism are not the same thing. This article is discussing a form of ethnocentrism, when we study it academically, we use specific names. It might be a form of racism, but calling it a more specific name doesn't change the meaning. It shouldn't matter if you think racism is disgusting, it still can be studied. And please, no more personal attacks. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

why. cant take it?

No, it's not constructive and Wikipedia policies require all editors to remain civil when interacting with other editors. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

by the way its Nordicism not Nordocentrism, and it would be Nordocentricism anyways.

Ok --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not become sarcastic with me, and contractions should be used as little as possible also. Remain civil. Please. Stop attacking me personally.

This conversation is done. Just please be more careful next time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosling (band) / Valderrama!

Hi, you don't see the copy&paste? 217.233.90.148 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but it looks like someone redirected the page in a really sloppy manner. However on closer inspection, this article doesn't cite any sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, what I mean? Valderrama! is copy&pasted from Gosling (band), a copyright violation. Please delete Valderrama and move Gosling (band) to Valderrama - if you are an admin. 217.233.90.148 (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are released under GFDL License, so all the content can be copied and modified at will; no copyright violations are possible. Are you saying that the content of the Gosling article came from a copyrighted website? Because that would be a problem. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm speechless. Copy&paste will not be deleted in enwiki? I'm an admin in dewiki since years and we need few seconds for deletion of something along those lines. Happy new year. 217.233.90.148 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I have to propose the deletion and let an admin take care of it. By the way, I know you're an admin so you probably already know this, but Wikimedia has a [unified login] so you can use your de.wikipedia account here as well. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging the GetBackers character list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You commented on the pages needing to be merged.If the pages were merged then the artical would be too long.

Then people won't beable to find what they're looking for because you have to take out some information.

Then there won't be any point in having information on any of the characters.Slidell-tigers (talk)

Actually, most the content of those individual character pages is plot sumary. Per WP:PLOT a short plot summary is appropriate, however all wikipedia subjects must be covered from a real world perspective, the articles cannot be dominated by in-universe detail. Also they do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements that require independent pages to have a demonstration of the topic's notability through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Because of this, policy requires these non-notable topics be merged to a larger more notable topic. So for both these reasons the content cannot stay as it is. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I started a conversation on Talk:List of GetBackers characters, so put any responses there. Thanks --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wasnotest

1ivRSI[lukitup,ndontdiskriminate,tx.2WASrequest3wipagelokd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.69.75.105 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2009

The strange edit at my talk page was vandalism.

It would have been fine to leave it killed. I appreciate your killing it, and I completely understand restoring it... some folks are happy to have visitors do things like that to their talk page. All the best. :)sinneed (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't exactly sure whether or not it was vandalism. Didn't want to warn someone for no reason. :P --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No please don't be sorry. I have faced the same struggle many times. I appreciate both that you killed it, and that you put it back. Thanks. :)sinneed (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Northumberland County Council

Hi - sorry, I was trying to move Northumberland Council to Northumberland County Council and seem to have made a mess of it! It doesn't seem to have worked for me, rest assured, I wasn't trying to vandalise! :) BNC85 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! Sorry if I surprised you! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffraction Gratings tutorial

Hi can you please let me know why it is inappropriate when it is not a promotion or advertising or personal websites.I would also like to point out that same kind of external links from another user already exist and seems accepted on diffraction gratings wikipedia page. ABeelut (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits appeared to be promoting that web site you were placing different articles from that site onto multiple wikipedia articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi It is a Diffraction Gratings tutorial by J.M. Lerner and A. Thevenon part of the HORIBA Jobin Yvon company website, on the optics of spectroscopy. It covers: diffraction gratings - ruled and holographic; monochromators and spectrographs; spectrometer throughput and etendue; optical signal-to-noise ratio and stray light; the relationship between wavelength and pixel position of an array; and entrance optics. May be the way i am adding the links are inappropriate , can you please tell me the right way in doing so. is it inappropriate because the tutorial is part of Horiba Jobin yvon website?, will you accept it if the tutorial was seperate on another website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABeelut (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the content of the article. I just patrol for vandalism and other suspicious behavior. Your activity looked like web site promotion so I reverted it. If you'd like to add the article to one article and see if the editors there approve of it, that would probably be fine. Just don't go around to different articles linking a specific website in the external links section, that's promotion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your advice. I would be very grateful if you could help me with the following query. how can someone affiliating with a company write articles or updates articles on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABeelut (talk • contribs) 10:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as editing for the company, you really shouldn't do that. But in editing subjects of interest that may relate to your work, I would read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding conflict of interest (Wikipedia:COI). If your company is directly involved in the subject though, you may want to consider working on something different so your main interest will be the improvement of Wikipedia and not promoting the company (see also). If you're interested in these topics and want to improve Wikipedia's coverage, your help would be much appreciated! Just make sure to be upfront with your potential conflict so the other editors are aware of it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Huggle

Yeah, sorry about that. I tried to cancel the reversion, then Huggle locked up on me. I'll change that setting now. SMC (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		Anime and manga service award
		For tagging and assessing over 400 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Service Award. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help:) G.A.S^talk 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

YAY! w00t! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Objectivism

(1) Congrats on the above award.

(2) I was going to fix that Elastica thing. I like both songs, Stutter and Connection, but it was the latter that should have had the links.

(3) Please check the discussion on Talk:Libertarianism and Objectivism

Cool runnings,
Yartett (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Aurora Publishing review for the discussions of the various Aurora titles. The project is still going through the many articles and Prodding/AfDing those that are not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's been up there for a week! I don't know how I missed that one. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [15] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [16] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

What do you mean you actually took out some books from your library to check references? I do this maybe once a month when picking old magazines for sources. Is it really that unusual? Ottre 09:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean I went and dug out 70 year-old books that no one seemed to have. If you do that all the time, that's great; but that kind of time-investment really isn't the norm. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. I noticed you've been editing for some time, so it seemed odd that you didn't have a similar arrangement—time isn't an issue really, as librarians are generally very willing to help the project and will hold. Most places will locate and transport books for you for nothing, and are happy to give away a few newspapers and magazines which are out of date. Would have thought it's a regular thing these days, as we have been entering lockdown phase for a few months now. Ottre 09:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it also depends on what your subject is. For some subjects, there is a wide variety of online sources to choose from (such as fiction or movies). With more academic subjects, it requires a little more in-depth research as there are few reliable sources online. I appreciate the encouragement to make better use of the library though. I have been putting off hunting for a certain magazine interview for a while and I feel a little more motivated to get to the library again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thank you for reverting 212.219.21.116's vandalism to my talk page! — Athaenara ✉ 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I hate vandalism. :D --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Small addition

• copied from User talk:Xenocidic/statusChanger2.js

I'm sorry but my knowledge of JavaScript seems to be at its limits. Would it be possible to add &action=purge to the links so that the status on the userpage and and usertalk can update? I created a modified statustop that has a button I can click on each page to refresh the status, but it would be cool if the statuschanger could just do that by itself. Hope to hear from you soon. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I apologize for the delay in answering this. Unfortunately I have to admit I'm not very good with .js myself. I only made minor changes to the script when I stole it from the previous owner =) –xeno (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: WP:FICT

As I wrote there:

I'm sorry I thought this was a poll, not a discussion where we can question each others rationals underneath each other, if that is the case, I will start commenting above too. Kraftlos, Izno please refactor out your comments to the above support section, not here. You can remove my comments too.Ikip (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a going a bit far. What we did was just fine, please. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Eat up!

LOL, that's perfect, thanks! It makes more sense too. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Elfen lied 03.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Elfen lied 03.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Alex Albrecht

Hello,

You marked my edit as vandalism, yet this is not the case. Feel free to review the reverted edit. The quote, is, in fact, legitimate, and you can confirm this with the accompanying reference that was provided. I believe this quote fit quite well in context with the other ones provided in the section. Please remove your edit.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.29.210 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't fit, and digg or youtube is kind of a shakey source, especially since you say unknown episode. Wikipedia can only refer to information that has already been published by reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, here is the video as published by its official distributor, Revision 3. It's Episode 59 of their weekly podcast: http://revision3.com/diggnation/2006-08-17. Please remove you edit and change the source.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.29.210 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that's a reliable source. Simply having a web site that is popular doesn't make the source reliable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the reliability can be refuted in this case. I added a quote that Alex Albrecht said. Are you denying that the person in the video is really Alex Albrecht? Maybe if you took some time and actually watched the video, you'd be better enlightened. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.29.210 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I see now that self-published sources are acceptable when the subject of the article is the one who published it. Just make sure its fully cited and that it meets Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources. I apologize for not investigating it further, but like it says in the notice at the top of the page, I made these edits quickly; your edits looked suspiciously like vandalism. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: History merge

Hello, Kraftlos. You have new messages at Graham87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm not sure if you want the reply on my talk page or yours. :-) Graham87 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Swai fillet.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Swai fillet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'm a tad confused at your comment here, where you assert that "wikipedia doesn't have moderators". Could you please elaborate? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea of the project is that everyone take some responsibility in policing the project. As Wikipedia grew, adminship was need to take care of some of the more specialized cases, however that's not really a moderator. What the user was implying was that someone was put in an elevated position to police the content of a page, and that is not the case. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators, its a community effort. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Blue law, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Help:Minor edit - "Obvious factual errors (e.g., changing "Nixon resigned in 1874" to "Nixon resigned in 1974")". I can't think of a more minor edit then a simple single word change that doesn't conflict with understanding but corrects a minor oversight. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between fixing a typo and changing the wording. Minor edit is really only something that can be used for formatting, obvious mistakes (like that Nixon example), and style issues. What you did, while not necessarily a major change, was not a minor edit, and it actually did change the meaning of the sentence. Religious beliefs and moral beliefs are not synonymous, so marking it minor wrongly assumes that it couldn't possibly be controversial. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Strathclyde CIS Page- Apparent Vandalism

I don't see how making a format more presentable constitues as vandalism. I've kept all the information on the page, just its presentation has changed. My lecturer has asked for me to change the layout, so you are hindering my progress in this assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.222 (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your lecturer is entitled to his/her opinion, but they don't control Wikipedia. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, you can't make assertions without referencing a reliable source. Also all changed must reflect consensus, anyone can question and change your edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can verify a format edit, what do you expect me to do? Link to a webpage layout tutorial? I felt that the jump menu was bigger than it had to be, so I made an edit to my page to compensate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.222 (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, this is not your page or the university's page. This is an encyclopedia article. This isn't a mirror to the Univeristy's web site, its not here to include "helpful tips" and what have you. Wikipedia articles can only deal with verifiable facts from reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(removed personal attack) x2

Look at this. This is not a format change, this is a content change, you changed the wording and content of quite a few paragraphs. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Barn Star

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your contributions to reverting vandalism. :] Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

YAY! I've never gotten a barnstar before! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Congratulations. Judging from all the vandalism to your user/talk page, that barnstar is highly deserved. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My edits

Listen son, stop reverting my edits or I am going to drop a peoples elbow on you. I am also going to report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.222 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You should try getting a username, otherwise you'll be lumped in with everyone editing at your school. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

Hi Kraftlos, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [17]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My edits

Thanks for your note. I think you jumped the gun though since by reverting me edit you actually ended up vandalizing the article unless I've been misinformed and Iron Man has decided to stop fighting villainy and instead take on a job as vice-principal at a small elementary school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.202.4 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you corrected it and I reverted and warned the wrong person. Actually, I had to jump into my regular browser to fix the problem. In this edit I restored it to a version from before all the vandalism one minute afterward. Also reverting to the wrong revision wouldn't count as vandalism since I wasn't the one who added it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

?

??? yandman 10:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears I missattributed your unsigned comment, but you fixed it. Is there a problem? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah. Just telling you it might be time to get some sleep... yandman 13:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

LMAO you were so right! Thanks. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

About: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graduate House (Australian National University)

Hi Kraftlos,
You make a very good point here. Thanks to your edit, on reflection I now see that my contribution to the AfD was partially an implicit otherstuff rationalisation. Thank you for the "heads up"!
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I really respect people that can think about things, change their opinion, and admit it. :D --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikbonked

Gonna take a 24 hr wikibreak to clear my head. Bah... --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting

It does not have to do with your account, but the posting script's account. And I don't know what the deal is, either. —harej 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani aviation taskforce

It appears,but clicking on info box edit lead to here [18].yousaf465' 01:54, 15 March 2009

Abdul Hameed Dogar

Do you remember that article.yousaf465' 23:18, 15 March 2009

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Contstructive comments

I'm contacting you in the context suggested by your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule -- see here. I joined that AfD thread after you had withdrawn, but my first blush impressions were similar to yours. As you suggested, I did investigate each one of the proffered citations. All proved to be naught but hollow shells. I now believe that your "take" on this dispute was 180° mistaken; and my view was congruent with yours.

My understanding of the dispute changed slowly as I followed the AfD thread until it closed; and afterwards, I continued to followed the evolution of talk page threads.

My problem today is figuring out how to pick out the relevant elements of the process in which my perspective changed so greatly. I'm also a bit uncertain about the extent to which my best efforts to become a constructive or mitigating factor were on-point or off-base.

Please, may I invite constructive comments about what I might have done differently to ameliorate a dispute which shows no signs of diminishing? More importantly, I wonder if you might be able to identify some of the lessons I can be able to take from this experience into other future situations in which I allow myself to be in the middle? I'm a little bit confused by whatever is happening here ....

I'm not so much inviting your further participation as I'm trying to elicit potentially helpful comments and observations from someone out-of-the-loop, but with a modest foundation from which to examine what transpired in the past few days. For the current status of the underlying issues, see Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Semi-protection needed. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright I'll give this a shot. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for constructive comments -- especially the bit about taking it slow.

Slow is definitely a very helpful concept to introduce here. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia, glad the comments helped. I've added it to my watchlist, so I'll try to stay involved. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the gentle and generous point-of-view you contribute to this talk thread. In any sort of "good cop/bad cop" analysis, the best we can hope for is that you're right and I'm wrong. I'm aware that I need to be careful not to be seen as over-reaching, but I can't quite make out how to recognize the line I don't want to cross? --Tenmei (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your attempt to encourage moderation and taking it a bit slower. I'm convinced that it's a very constructive suggestion, even here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation Arbitration

This is my best effort to distill a complex tangle of problems into something succinct. Even if nothing else is ultimately achieved, I feel this writing exercise was worth my investment of time. I hope this can -- in some unforeseen manner -- help you avoid the necessity of "re-inventing the wheel" in some other setting in the future. In my view, this summarizing step is an essential part of the alchemy process which turns what we all endured into something of plausibly instructive value. I myself can't understand the full measure of lessons learned the hard way at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty -- not yet. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. --Tenmei (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

I posted the following on Teeninvestor's talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted an ArbCom notice template on Teeninvestor's talk page. He/she did not consent to mediation; and that dispute resolution process could not go forward. Today, a request for arbitration has been entered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; and the complaint is captioned "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article". --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

YOU do not need do participate unless you choose to do so

I'm sorry. Do I need to apologize? You are not required to be a part of this.

You are welcome to participate, of course; but I wasn't intending to drag you into anything. I used this ArbCom template because I thought it would be easily recognizeable; but if misled you by doing this, that's bad. Sorry.

Having asked for your feedback, I was persuaded that I was a little bit obliged to "keep you in the loop" ... but I truly had no intention to burden you unfairly. --Tenmei (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Kraftlos, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here [19]. Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2009

Your PUI nominations

Possibly unfree images is for discussing if images marked under free licenses are potentially unfree, not to discuss images that are already marked as such. If you eish to do that, please go to Files for deletion instead. ViperSnake151 13:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought that's what I did. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Seven Sound to Heart

heres prof 1 http://www.heartgloucestershire.co.uk/ and 2 http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.4534 see for yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudrocksurfing (talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the flashing note at the top of the page which directly relates to this question. Thanks. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Severn Sound

What is your problem with edits to the article Severn Sound? You have reverted several edits, when in fact the station changed its name as of today. --TimTay (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read conversation above and the flashing note at the top of this page which directly relate to this question. Thanks. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So you think it is acceptable to revert things without question (multiple times in the case of Severn Sound) and just put a disclaimer on your talk page? It would be much better if you justified your behaviour and provide apologies when you make a mistake. I certainly do that when I make mistakes when on anti-vandal patrol. --TimTay (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the history page, I wasn't the only one who identified it as vandalism. The edits looked suspicious, didn't refer to any references, and the user didn't provide an edit summary. It wasn't a mistake, so no apology is needed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection however, his edits were not technically vandalism, so the second message doesn't apply... technically. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the open-ended process invites anyone to participate, not only those who contributed to the thread which led to a case being opened. Even if you choose not to contribute formally, I would appreciate it if you identify anything I've posted as too thinly argued or over-reaching in some way. I'm trying to maintain a "measured" tone, but that balancing act is not easy for anyone, I'd guess.

I hope you find this forum proves to be worth your investment of time and attention -- if only because of the possibility that you glimpse some better way of dealing with those who would dismiss, deride, or devalue any future contribution labeling anyone "pro-Mongolian" (as if it were a self-evident and obviously perjorative term). This seems rather like those who have sought to diminish my Wikipedia contributions with a label "Japanese" (as if "Japanese" were to be understood an arguably derisive term).

I would guess you probably understand that my primary focus is elsewhere, but I'm still troubled by that "pro-Mongolian" gambit in the AfD thread. It's not so much that the innuendo was introduced, although I'm very clear that it shouldn't have been tolerated by the consensus. What still bothers me particularly is that this derisive tactic proved to be so easy, so effective, so readily accepted by the so-called "uninvolved" or "neutral" others in that discussion thread. I wish there were some way to leverage this ArbCom "event" so that such needless tactics were less easy or that such heedless claims were accorded closer scrutiny? Just a thought ...?

To be frank, I don't quite understand how this will unfold from this point on -- especially in light of what Teeninvestor has posted thus far. We'll see how ArbCom manages the difficult task of unraveling a knot of problems.

Bottom line: If you can see some way to convert this from a mere academic exercise into something with practical and practicable consequences, please share your thoughts with me or with some member of ArbCom. You aren't obliged to do anything, but a constructive insight would be very welcome indeed.

On an optimistic note, will you join me in hoping that this process can be converted into something which is demonstrably constructive, useful, helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RCC note

Kraflos, thanks for coming by to keep tabs on the note situation. I saw your comments and made some changes to JB's proposed note accordingly. Please let us know what you think. It is here [20]. NancyHeise ^talk 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated! I'll take a look. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

having difficulty editing my user information

I want to take off all the stuff that I wrote about myself on my user alalnewyork under the description , alal uddin

i emailed you last time, but I am not familiar w/ wiki. can you help delete the article.

i only wrote one article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalnewyork (talk • contribs) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I requested deletion and referenced this conversation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

One more help.

this is Alal again, you helped w/ deleting my subject alalnewyork post. I need one more deletion, which is listed under

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moulivibazar.

now I forgot my password for moulivibazar user, but you can see, alanewyork and moulivibazar has the same post about me.

thank you for your kind assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalnewyork (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

its me again, Alal, this time I am logged in to moulivibazar

can you delete moulivibazar post as well.

i just remembered my password. Thank you for your help again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulivibazar (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

one final delete, thank you

one final delete, thank you user is kalimkhan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kalimkhan

long story short, I was trying to put my information online, and now I am taking everything off because of privacy issues. As you can see, its the same paragraph that I wrote on my previous pages.

Thank you so much, I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalimkhan (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem! If you need more help, just ask. :D --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop using Advisor.js AT ONCE

This script has made editorial changes to URLs, causing the URL to stop working. One example of this problem is your edits to International System of Units. Please review all edits you have mande with this tool and undo any damage that may have been done. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The script isn't automatic and this just looks like a freak occurrence. Most URL's don't have "NOT" in them. Since I have complete control of what it does and does not change, I don't need to stop using the script, and I'm going to use the script to restore the other legitimate edits to the page. Also in the future, use the history page to compare edits so you only revert the edit you want to revert; instead of rolling back all my edits (also my edit summaries indicated what was being changed in each edit). This doesn't take very much time and its a common courtesy to other editors. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I generally try to only undo the specific portions of edits that are a problem, but when the edits are spread throughout the article and involve long URLs, it is too difficult for me to bother with. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first one was a content edit, the second edit (appropriately marked minor edit) only involved format changes and indicated that it used adviser.js. Just keep in mind in the future to take the time to see what was done after each edit; not everyone makes them haphazardly. In the future, please looking at each edit before rolling all the edits back; not only is it common courtesy, but it's also Wikipedia policy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Liu Tao

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chinese_Civil_War_territorial_changes that talks in some detail about Liu Tao's editing practices. There seems to be widespread agreement that something should be done, but so far it seems the administrators are not taking an interest. Are you an administrator and is this something you can look into? I ask you specifically because I noticed you put a warning on his talk page. Readin (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an an administrator, but I really hate people editwarring, especially because of some political cause. I'll participate. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [21]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Kraftlos! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

I'll take it! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Faceless

Hi
Why do you think that was incorrect information?
Cheers, Amalthea 20:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, the myspace page still lists Lyle Cooper, so you're probably right. Not sure it was made in bad faith though. Cheers, Amalthea 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't reverting external links. Some anon editor had put one of the former member of a band back as active without any explanation. I'm sorry if I accidentally reverted a link. BTW, WP:LINKS strongly cautions against linking to myspace. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there weren't any external links involved, I was only wondering about the change to the band members. BTW, it does not really matter where the official page of a notable band is. They can publish whatever they feel like, no matter if it's on myspace or somewhere else, and (depending on the information) it can be accepted as a primary source. It always depends on whose myspace page it is. Cheers, Amalthea 11:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I'm not particularly involved in that article. If I made a mistake, feel free to correct it. ^^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation: Conversely

To NancyHeise's comment:

Yes— stick to what the cited references state— AND the cited references does NOT use the term "Protestants," NOR does it use the term "other Christians." The cited reference does not blaim the term on anyone and we don't have to blaim the term on anyone. --Carlaude ^talk 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why you're posting this on my talkpage, but the mediation is limited to the listed participants who were originally involved in the debate back in January. Everyone else will have a chance to weigh in after the mediation is over. Please refrain from attempting to influence the procedings, you were already asked once. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but all evidence is that this is just a made-up policy to exclude participation. I guess it is done to make Sunray's task easier, but it is detrimental to Wikimedia and to its pillars. --Carlaude ^talk 06:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we've had what, 1-2 years of unfruitful discussion on the article's talk page. What this does is it narrows it down to certain people (most the people who were editing at the end of last year) and places a moderator to keep the discussion on-topic. It also prevents people from jumping into a discussion late in the game (like you have) and questioning decisions (like the page move) where we have already took 2-3 months to hammer out a compromise; you're jumping in without the facts, and without any sense of the history of the discussion. That's why its limited to these participants. Also, whatever we come up with in mediation still has to be proposed on the article's talkpage; you will have your say. Also keep in mind that mediation is not binding. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you have an tremendous gall to tell me I have no idea what I am talking about. Sunray, for one, found my input useful and you now seem prone to do little but commit your own pet peaves. The residents of this page cannot declare themselves except from Wikipedia policy on their own just because they "know" what is going on.--Carlaude ^talk 07:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You apparently don't know what was going on since it seemed like new information to you that a move had been decided on. Also, I'm not sure which peeve you're talking about, but I'm not referring to your ability as a Wikipedia editor (you don't appear to be new at this). If you are referring to Civility or AGF, I don't know what to tell you other than I have remained civil and have assumed good faith. I agree that you were addressing valid points; however bring these points, some of which had already been discussed, right as the draft note was being brought in was disruptive. This is isn't an open discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And like I said, this isn't binding. Meaning the conclusions reached in mediation do not immediately go into effect; once concluded, everything that is changed or proposed to be changed will be open to everyone. This is a dispute between the participants, not a group of people taking exclusive control over the page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yamcha Merge

Thnx for notifying me. I'm amazed how ppl like to sit on their asses, do nothing and then undermine someones hard work. Anywayz, thnx. SSJ 5 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned your comment in a ANI on another user

As a courtesy, I referred to one of your comments in regard to an ANI about another user. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC Mediation

Your input is needed here [22] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 03:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [23] Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Zatch Bell Characters

The List of Zatch Bell! minor characters has been redirected to List of Zatch Bell! characters per the merge tag.[24] per the merge tag posted since December 2008. If there are any from the minor that need merging, please feel free to do so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Tenmei (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, provided that he does so in a civil fashion. He is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) or Caspian blue (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others or his mentors). Tenmei shall also be assigned one or more volunteer mentors. Other remedies also apply.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Should the remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [25]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise ^talk 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)