Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 26 September 2008

Archives

Jun 2005 - Jul 2006 Aug 2006 - Feb 2007 Mar 2007 - May 2007 Jun 2007 - Dec 2007 Dec 2007 - Aug 2008 Latest archive

WRONG

Do you NOT pay attention when you read? I have provided two articles which prove that the first kidnapped victim in 1990 was tortured but NOT killed. The second victim was kidnapped in 1995 and was NEVER found. Who knows where his body is.

Here is one of the two articles. Please learn how to read before you PWN so called vandals.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99feb25/world.htm#6

I'm surprised Dhinsa's page is on your watchlist. I had never even heard of the guy until I saw him on an episode of The FBI Files a few months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.230.117 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I got your warning.

Dear Kafziel:

I will keep in mind to be respectful of other people's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsessions28 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some help here.

Hello. I recently edited on the Republic of China article and there is some user named "Pyl" referring my edits as "vandalism." Here's what I edited, to save you some time as shown below: 1. Edit summary: Changed "Republic of China" into "Taiwan" Ma Ying-jeou, President of the Republic of China. replaced to Ma Ying-jeou, President of Taiwan.

2. Edit Summary: Removed Image:ROC Administrative and Claims.jpg Constitutional administrative division of the Republic of China.

Reason: This appears to be definite misinformation. Mongolia is Mongolia. Taiwan (ROC, if you wish to call) does not have control over Mongolia.

Prowikipedians (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to be writing on your page while you are not involved in this matter. However, I feel that I have been misrepresented here by a story wasn't completely told.

The above edits were marked "Minor", and the reasons given by Prowikipedians for the above edits were "removed minor vandalism" or "reword awk. sentence". I have assumed good faith, but no reasonable person would believe that these were geninue reasons for the edits. I said this to Prowikipedians earlier but I was not given a reply.--Pyl (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Prowik, don't lie to me about the edit summaries you used; I can see for myself that Pyl is correct. You misrepresented your edits and based on your past performance I am sure it was intentional. You know what you did was not acceptable—I have no doubt about that—and if it leads to a block it will be deserved. Truth be told, it's starting to look like you need to be banned from editing all Asia-related articles. Kafziel 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I believe that it was due to a fact that I over-simplified or mis-worded what I edited, which can be seen by the edit I made | here. Also, I just checked my edits, and it appeared that I accidentally deleted a few paragraphs of text somewhere near the area where I replaced “Ma Ying Jo...Republic of China” with “Ma Ying Jo...Taiwan” as seen | here. The edit summaries I provided in the conversation above was a brief discription of what I did. Sorry if that had bothered you. I am going on a 'wikibreak' for a few more days/weeks. But can someone here explain to me why Taiwan (ROC) is claiming control over places such as Tibet, Mongolia, etc? Or was it a simplification from “People's Republic of China (Mainland)” into “Republic of China?” It can be very misleading, no? Prowikipedians (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I may tend to write different that what I think, but really wasn't intentional. Was miswording and misunderstanding. Sorry. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. | Discussion of Image_talk:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.jpg Prowikipedians (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, I think this has been resolved. Cheers. Prowikipedians (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated anger

You are a horrible representation of an editor, you have an agressive slanderous nature, you should be aware before you call people names and implicate them in fraudulent editing that pershaps you should check. Who are you. Mkae sure you leave your name and number. P.S. Remove your picture, you look too much like Sadam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I piss people off on a daily basis, so you'll need to be more specific. Kafziel 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Photographer's Barnstar

Thank you for that!!

)

Pratheepps (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Iluvteletubbies

Hi. I noticed you indef blocked Iluvteletubbies, then unblocked him to "second chance" him. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that the report you responded to was actually the second one for him today by two different editors. In my earlier report, I noted that he is continuously refactoring talk pages, despite numerous warnings, has performing moved vandalism of talk pages and an AfD, has done some vandalism on articles, etc. He has also immediately recreating his non-sense redirects when they are CSDed. I think he's already had lots of chances, and am hoping you'll reconsider leaving him completely unblocked.-- ] (] · ]) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Although some of his contribs are pretty disruptive at first glance, I think at least some of them are harmless and some of them (such as the move of "Cantonese swearing" to "Cantonese profanity") are actually helpful. To be honest, it seems to me like he's received more warnings than he actually deserves. I'm certainly willing to review it again, though. Can you provide me with diffs of some edits you feel are blatant vandalism? Kafziel 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from the talk page refactoring, I strongly suspect this guy may be yet another sock of User:BambiFan101 (also casually known as the Disney vandal), as such edits were one of his signatures, but some that are blatant to me:

• On Po (disambiguation):
• On Anti-Barney humor, continues making edits like this: with copyrighted lyrics and his own opinions, despite numerous reverts and warnings (which is also basically slow edit warring)
• And his refactoring of other people's talk page comments: Talk:DipsyTalk:Babe: A Pig in the City, Talk:Cinderella_III:_A_Twist_in_Time, Talk:Barney & Friends, Talk:Anti-Barney humor, Talk:Po (disambiguation)

Hope that helps...there are a lot more instances on the talk page stuff, those are just some of the recent/biggest where he has removed one more discussions all together.-- ] (] · ]) 01:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some of those examples (like the talk page changes and the OR additions to the Barney article) are more of a case of not understanding the rules. I don't think they're malicious, just misguided. But I will keep an eye on him now, and if it doesn't improve immediately then I'll re-block. Kafziel 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just a quick note but it seems he is still causing trouble at the Teletubbies article, and earlier he deliberately changed to using his IP address to do some edits (self admitted under claim he "forgot" to log in, except by time stamps he obviously logged in to answer, logged out, then logged in again). While under the IP, he kept attempting to do the same edits to Charlotte's Web (1973 film) that he received numerous warnings on at Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure, including attempting to restore a badly written, earlier version of the plot, continuing to reorder the cast list to some seemingly random order, etc. -- ] (] · ]) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another note, he is once again refactoring talk pages and attempting to restore old versions of articles. -- ] (] · ]) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Anpersonalaccount

I lodged a formal complaint before as I wasn't aware of the occurrences on wp: 3RR. Thank you for your administrative actions. JSR (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience: He keeps talking. Don't bother too much he will have the last word no matter what. Of course, he talks only on 'behavior' etc. and never on irrelevant things like books, citations, author-qualifications, or quotes. That's when he just gets 'angry'. JSR (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He just reverted me again and told me to Go away! JSR (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, just let him blank it if he wants. Like you said, don't bother. We'll see how things go after the block. Kafziel 07:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Prowikipedians updates!

Hello, Kafziel. Before you freak out or something. Here's a brief summary on what I have done recently:

• Liberation_Through_Hearing_During_the_Intermediate_State has been moved from Bardo Thodol, reason using official and true title.

(Provided reason: (Great Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State is the official and true title, according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/tibetan_2.shtml.))

• Ignoring all rules, I removed an inappropiate link (http://www.adherents.com) as being cited as a resource from article Buddhism. You may consider this 3RR, which is in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies, however, using Misplaced Pages's "Ignore all rules," I removed the link since it has nothing to do with the article. Was irrelevant to Buddhism and was not verifiable.

In gen: There was this user (Nat Krause) that made the paper and web links together. I removed the weblink from article Buddhism.

Prowikipedians (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Prowikipedians (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sikh Rajputs

Hello there. Since you were over-seeing the revert-warring episode on this article page, I thought I'll share this with you. After seeing this revision, I was laughing at the irrelevant personalized addition to the article's talk page. I'm not quite sure how that needs to be handled. Another editor has removed it now, but I was hoping to consult you for advice. Thanks in anticipation. Mspraveen (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the above matter. I'd also like to bring this revision to your attention. Hey, btw, please tell me if I'm over-reporting these instances to you. If you'd like me to go to ANI instead of bumping into you all the time, I can certainly do so. Let me continue what I began a few sentences earlier. Even before the editor's contentious edits (contentions not just by me, but by another editor as well) on Sikh Rajputs were resolved, he inserts related text into Mair Rajputs. What he contends in his edit summaries or messages on the talk pages is that he'll add the information from what he's read somewhere. When asked to cite his statements, he says it is not his Ph.D thesis and someone over time will come and tag the references along (see Talk:Sikh Rajputs or Sikh Rajputs history pages). I felt his thoughts to be bloggish and his constant attempts to insert text does not augur well, IMO. I don't want to revert and write about it in the talk page about it, because I'm pretty sure he'll revert me into it without a proper rationale and discussion. I believe in contributing to mainspace and other misc. activities. I don't really like wikilawyering or discussing these, but I can't help see such contentious edits. Thought I could share my thoughts here. Mspraveen (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've written a very few articles related to India and Sikhism, but for I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand all the subtleties. If you feel the material is inappropriate, you can remove it. You have WP:V behind you. Just don't edit war over it - if you can't solve it after 1 or 2 reverts, leave the article as it is and seek official dispute resolution.

An edit war with that editor is unlikely at this point, because if he undoes your edits after his block he will be blocked again. But there's always the possibility of sockpuppets or anonymous editing, so in that case just avoid the edit war and go to WP:ANI or get help at WP:SIKH instead. I hope that helps. Kafziel 17:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Yes, I won't edit-war. It was just a bad day at office that got me frustrated into revert-warring. The article's content now has seen at least two more editors voicing their concerns about its verifiability. I've AfD'ed it at present due to concerns by three editors including me, and with that I hope for a broader consensus from WP:SIKH, WP:India and other editors in general. Mspraveen (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whay you want to delet artical Sikh Rajput. what kind of verification you need ?, there is lot's of sikh rajput's, my whole family is a sikh, and we praud we a sikh rajput. Many rajput complitly adopt sikhisam as a religon. There is lot's of information available in Adampur Doaba Gazetteers, regarding Droli kalan. For more, visit http://sikhrajput.com/ http://sikhrajput.com/index.php/section:506a7/template:nature http://sikhrajput.com/index.php/section:8ffd6/template:nature there is lot's of Sikh Rajput's village in Punjab , haryana, Himachal pardesh & Jammu and Kashmir. Give me reply, whay you want to block me, have you enought resion to mark disputed or delet this artical ?. Sikh Rajput 09:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Sukhdev Singh Minhas talk

X-American_lists

Please comment: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_to_Remove_List_of_X-American_lists.Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bob Enyart

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bob Enyart, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bob Enyart. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mksmothers (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod, Prod, Prod, don't you just love them?

From WP:ANI This is why PROD is a worthless waste of time, and everyone should just take the extra 30 seconds to make a proper AfD report. PROD is just a way of giving an article an extra few days on Misplaced Pages before the author removes the tag and it ends up having to go through AfD anyway. No admin action needed here.

Coulnd't agree more with this, and i suggest we prod the prod template some day. To bad so many users over at WP:AFD deem placing an AFD template on a page that isn't CSD-able b(ut doesn't stand a real chance on an AFD ) a crime against editing time. Funnt how prod templates tend to cause so much extra work since you have to keep an eye on them if they are not removed. Not even mentioning the issue that placing a PROD at the articles creation time is apparently polite while an AFD template is WP:Bite/WP:AGF. A well, enough about this. Now where can i request a policy change on those things? ;) Excirial 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried PROD out for about a week back when it was first proposed, and it only took people about half that time to figure out how to take advantage of it. It's been pointless since day 3 or 4, but somehow managed to become policy in spite of itself. Kafziel 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra 30 seconds? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

About that. If you put a prod tag on an article, you must have thought of some reason for doing it. The only difference between PROD and AFD is clicking on "preloaded debate" and typing that reason up. That should take about 30 seconds, since you already know what to write because you did your homework before you placed the tag, just as you should with PROD. So once that's done, presto! You've just started a useful discussion instead of giving people a way to game the system for five days. Kafziel 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

? In my experience, it takes 5-10 minutes to go through the whole hassle-laden process of an AfD. I'm told it might go faster if I had Twinkle, but that's not practical.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in total it might take that long or longer... but in reality, so does a PROD. A PROD tag shouldn't be placed on an article unless due diligence is done first—determining what guidelines/policies it fails to meet, checking for reliable sources, that sort of thing—so the only difference is typing the AfD and transcluding it. Assuming you know your reasoning for wanting it deleted (and assuming you're not a hunt-and-peck typist) it certainly doesn't need to take more than a minute at most. Of course, some AfD statements are more elaborate than others, but they don't need to be. Even a one-sentence "fails WP:BIO" nom is better than a PROD tag.

For instance, in the current ANI case, all you'd need to do is place the afd tag (same amount of time as placing a prod tag), click the preloaded debate button that's right there in the tag, and on the next page just type "Fails WP:MOVIE" as your reason. And that's it. Someone will come along and change the category to "M", other people can debate (or not) as they please. 30 seconds and your obligation is complete. Kafziel 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

PRODs *do* work for unattended articles. Oftentimes the article creator is long gone, or only comes by every few weeks, so these PRODs often succeed. This is certainly less work for the rest of us than AfD. A PROD doesn't have to be relisted if no-one comments, unlike an AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

An AfD doesn't have to be relisted, either. It's become customary, but the policy doesn't require it. The nominator's statement can be enough to close an AfD. If nobody has an argument to the contrary (just like prod) then I'm fine with closing as delete. Plus, a decision made at AfD is a more binding precedent; speedy deletions and PRODs can be overturned on a whim, whereas an article recreated after an afd can be deleted on sight. Finally, starting an AfD means you don't even need to watch the article anymore, because removing an AfD tag will be reverted as vandalism. There's simply no down side to it. Kafziel 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Another point of view..... prod does have it's purpose. It's great for getting rid of what appears to be cruft but you aren't 100% sure of. Good examples are articles dealing with radio hosts and with podcasts are a good example. They tend to spawn like rabbits as fans create them (badly) and then never update them. A few are worth keeping so CSD is too harsh, but there are so many to consider that AFD would just waste a lot of people's time. In recent sweeps through the podcast and radio host categories, 90% of the prods went uncontested, the rest went to AFD. Overall admins and editors spent less time, there were fewer pointless arguments and things still got cleaned up.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Expired prod" isn't a valid reason for deletion anyway, so the article still needs to meet CSD criteria. Speedy is better because a) if tagged quickly, there's a decent chance the author will still be around and have a chance to improve it, and b) if the article is inappropriate, we shouldn't have it sitting around for days on end. Speedy deletion isn't supposed to be harsh; people can be rude and abusive with it, but that goes for PROD as well. I know that the main appeal of PROD is that there's a good chance no one will notice until it's too late, but back-door deletions aren't good at all in my book. People shouldn't have their articles deleted just because they didn't check in for a few days, and if there's a valid reason to delete it then it should either be done quickly (CSD) or authoritatively (AFD). PROD is neither. It takes as long as AFD but isn't binding at all. Kafziel 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Made my day

Your "Congratulations" blocking of User:Thokkoht made my day, thank you. Improbcat (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. :) Kafziel 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

i deserve an award

i duno what for but i do alot of protecting pages mainly of my intrest --Cmedinger (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rescue Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, it means a lot to have time spent acknowledged. I couldn't care less about the subject of the article in question, but the partisan bickering and POV nonsense in that AFD was really irritating me so I rewrote the article with some basic biographic info on the subject from available press coverage.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I had never even heard of the guy before I responded to a report at the Admin's noticeboard. Don't care about him at all, but those are the most important articles to look out for because they can fall through the cracks so easily. Anyway, thanks for the work. Kafziel 02:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Rajputs

Thank you for your help on this article and I think your decision to keep the article was a fair one (albeit contentious lol). Can I take you up on your offer to work on this article as a watch etc for a while? user:Atulnischal seems to be using Misplaced Pages as a platform for communal propoganda from certain RSS elements it appears, and it would be good to have the neutral influence of an admin over this area.

Thanks again Kafziel --Shanti bhai (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sig

Completely unrelated to any discussions we are in, just wanted to say I like your sig. --mboverload@ 06:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, your block message here is awesome per everyone in the IRC channel. --mboverload@ 06:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah, that's a popular one. It started out as a parody of another admin's overly-friendly block message, but I think at this point mine is more well-known than hers ever was. Kafziel 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE use that block message on here. He needs a vacation. --mboverload@ 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who blocked him initially, I'm waiting for another admin to come and review the block. I don't think it will be a problem when they have a look at the lovely message he left for us. Kafziel 06:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected user page

You recently protected User Talk:RhoLyokoWarrior . Would you please place {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=RhoLyokoWarrior}} on the talk page? Just going thru the motions. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

While I realize you just reblocked him and have protected his talk page to prevent further disruption, the fact that you haven't issued an indefinite block speaks volumes about you. Maybe with some guidance Onelifefreak2007 can turn into a productive editor... I doubt it, but it's nice that you're giving him another chance. Any overly passionate but productive editor should be lucky to run into an administrator like you. Well done... and now, I'm off to visit Tivo who has been saving the season premiere of Heroes for me. AniMate 07:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll admit my faith and patience are wearing thin on this one, but hopefully a week off will help get him on track. It's amazing how a few days away can put things in perspective. Kafziel 06:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For help

Hello! The administor VS asked me to note to other Admins. It happened that I found you and I invite you help to solve the dispute/problem about the article Gaogouli County if you are interested and have time. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=240660700. Thanks! -Dicting (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I think that situation is a little over my head. I can't really tell what the issue is. Kafziel 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Krugerrand

I'm really, honestly, dismayed by what you're saying at ANI. Under your contention, any vandal can blank anything that doesn't have a source, and vandal hunters can't restore it without having to track down sources. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think you're misunderstanding me. You can re-add the information. Removing it wasn't vandalism, though, so you should be careful about edit warring over it. And if you don't add some sources that same guy is going to remove it again in another day or two, and at that point he'd probably be more within his rights to do so. Kafziel 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing it on this particular article may not be vandalism, but what happens the next time I encounter a blanked section in some other article? Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it back in, and ask the user to explain their reason for removing it. If they do, whether in an edit summary or on their talk page, it's probably good-faith-ish. If they ignore you and do it again, you're probably safe to treat it as vandalism. You just have to judge each case on its own merits. Kafziel 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory. I don't seem to have ever worked on that article. Did I comment on a related AfD or something? Kafziel 19:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I found it. I don't really have an opinion about either of the articles—I was just there for dispute resolution—but thanks for the notice anyway. Kafziel 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis

Khoikhoi has just reverted you while the article was protected. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Opis

My bad, I hadn't noticed the reprotection, and after I made the revert I went out for a bit. However, I have to say that I strongly disagree with what has just occured. I've left a comment at AN/I. Khoikhoi 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)