User talk:Kalamrir

Welcome!

Hello, Kalamrir, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JACO PLANE • 2007-10-26 20:00

Brotherhood of Nod[edit]

Isn't it about 50 years, not 100? The beginning of the first war starts at about 1999, and the third in the 2040s. That seems like a 50 year span to me... Erythromycin (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you take the Tiberium story arc itself into consideration. The first Red Alert game, however, is confirmed to be the prequel of the original Command & Conquer game and by proxy the prologue of the entire Tiberium story arc. With Red Alert taking place in the 1950s, and with Tiberium Wars in 2047, this makes Kane's appearances span nearly a full century.

If you're looking for source material, the best place to start is to read through the official Red Alert FAQ by Westwood Studios[1], particularly these two chapters: "1.1 What is Red Alert?" and "1.6 Where are GDI and Nod?". Kalamrir (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeality comments[edit]

Yeah, I've been mostly absent from active editing, but I do need to replace the Las Vegas Weekly links at FK with Wayback archived equivalents and fix the Chrono articles I helped author. If there's one unique thing I've contributed to C&C, it's the fictional universe as described by the Petroglyph employees. It's no longer canon since Electronic Arts has gone a different route, though. Still, it was a controversial addition at the time and has probably been removed by now. I wonder if there's a place for it on one of the C&C articles. Zeality (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been addressed by me. Read up on the C&C task force discussion page sometime for the precise details of it all. Kalamrir (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:C&C template[edit]

I noticed that it was up for merger which is why I didn't replace the link, however it did just say other and together they do form the "Generals series" of games and not just others which aren't related to each other in anyway. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The problem however is that a single title and its expansion pack do not really qualify as a "series". We'll have to debate this issue in length after the merger of the two articles is completed, and see what we can come up with for the template. Kalamrir (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You just broke this rule, but since you have not been warned, I am not going to report it. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip[edit]

Hello Kalamrir, I just want to give you two links: WP:VAND#NOT and WP:RM. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrStalker, and thank you for the links you provided. I have taken note of the information in WP:VAND#NOT, and was made to conclude that the nature of your earlier edits - which I had marked as vandalism - do not appear to be among the list of edit types which are often wrongfully mistaken as cases of vandalism. This appears to suggest that my revert of your earliest edits on the premise of vandalism was in fact correct, and was also supported by Wikipedia guidelines, since they seemed to constitute "repetitively and intentionally unconstructive edits", as defined by WP:VAN. Thank you.

Admittedly, I am not without fault in this dispute either. Reading over WP:VAN, I appear to have repeatedly acted against a Wikipedia guideline described in "How not to respond to vandalism". For that, I do apologize. Kalamrir (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read this: WP:AGF. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base the assumption I originally did not assume good faith in your edits? I believe we have both been active as members of the C&C task force for quite a while prior to this dispute, without any incident worthy of note. What do you believe it was that altered this? Kalamrir (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happend to know that Tiberian Dawn is not an official title, and that Tiberium is not part of Tiberian series, and thus I'll do anything in my power to present this correctly on Wikipedia. I do this in good faith. Honestly, I think you are frustrated because you believe otherwise but doesn't gain any support from other editors. Thus, you become easily acceptable to the assumtion that my edits are of bad faith, which they are not. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment is quite emblematic of the origins of this dispute. Numerous forms of source material are readily available for you to consult that prove your assessment false, and secondly, these sources have been added by other editors than myself in the past. Thus, your assertion that I "do not gain support from other editors" is a fallacy. It should also be noted that thus far, only a single editor has made a single edit in your favor, which was a highly misinformed one as well. Since you have consistently and systematically ignored all the source material we have available in order to to press a case of blatant misinformation, I am left with no other option than to conclude that you operate on bad faith, and are intentionally attempting to disrupt the quality of our articles. I will act accordingly. Kalamrir (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response on my talk page. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. You may resume editing after the block expires but continuing this edit war will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. With regards to the C&C-related dispute; I hope it is now settled, as I'd much rather invest my time here on Wikipedia into improving the quality of this website's articles. This is something I've been doing for these past two to three months with quite a bit of commitment and investment of time, as my history pages will demonstrate in no uncertain terms.

I've noted most editors appear to receive barn stars for this. I've apparently been rewarded with a baseless edit war from another user and a one-sided temporary block from Wikipedia by an administrator. I'm aware that a single administrator is hardly representative of the Wikipedia website and its mission in general, and as such I will be able to shrug this off without any real loss of motivation in the long run. But even so, the experience has been so distasteful Wikipedia can quite frankly blow me for an undetermined period of time, with this particular administrator as the first standing in line.

With kind regards,

the primary and most active editor of Wikipedia's Command & Conquer-related articles. Kalamrir (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, my blocking you is very much representative of Wikipedia and our policies; I didn't do it for fun. The (sometimes unfortunate) truth is that no matter how much expertise you have, no matter how much time you invest here, you never earn the right to edit war. I've dealt with similar things over the years (the article on Star Wars: Battlefront comes to mind) and sometimes all you can do is step back and let the page go to the dogs for a while. You'll find that, in the long run, everything will sort itself out with or without you, so there's no need to panic. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Template[edit]

Alright, I'll look into it. I misunderstood the edit when I reverted, so I'll check up on the discussion page before I change it again. Thanks, FusionMix 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation[edit]

Ok then, why is it soooooooooo important to note that the ion storm that disabled communication with the GDSS Philly also brought down a GDI command ship, and why do we need to know that Paul cortez was the cammander of the GDI base using the call sign southern cross? Wouldn't it be better to simply eliminate these uneeded points and note that the in Philly's absence southern cross assumed command of GDI forces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.167 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of the very simple fact that it's relevant information to an article dedicated specifically to all things GDI. So I'm going to reverse the question -- why is it "sooooooooo" important that these parts are removed, exactly? Kalamrir (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, they are unsorced. The article is full of cruft, and these additions aren't helping any. The average guy or girl reading this isn't going to know what what a kodiak is or who paul is since his name isn't linked to a bio anywhere. And perhaps you would care to explain to me how a crashed ship critically impacts the discion of a secondary base to assume the role filled by a primary base? From where I sit, there isn't any reason to confuse readers with this information. Moreover, how are my edits bad for the article? You revereted three times with no explination for the overrides which leads me to believe you are violating AGF. Try answering those questions, if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.167 (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'll be sourcing these sentences in your honor in the very near future. I thank you for bringing that issue to my attention. Secondly, the "average guy or girl" reading this article will either already posses a background in the lore of the C&C games, or will soon obtain it considering they are showing interest in the information provided by articles which are dedicated entirely to specific aspects of that lore. In short, I disagree with your assertion that this information "confuses" readers, as you put it. Lastly, don't put words into my mouth -- I did not at any point remark that your edits were supposedly "bad" as such. However, when an anonymous IP removes information which I as a senior member of the C&C task force consider to be relevant to an article, and this without providing any form of rationale or edit summary, then this can and will lead me to believe that that user may be comitting a bad faith edit, and perhaps even an act of vandalism. This holds especially true for anonymous users whose talk page seems to contain multiple remarks about unconstructive edits, as in your case. Thank you. Kalamrir (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not presume to judge my contributions by messages left on an ISP talk page before my arrival at this computer; those edits and comments existed before I arrived here. As for your ascertain regarding seniority here: how dare you presume that just because you are a registered user you somehow have more right than I do to decide what is appropriate here and what isn't. This is a wiki, you don't own any of the articles here, and you have no more or less a right to decide what stays here and what goes than I do. You would do well to remember this, Kalamrir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.167 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My position as a senior C&C task force member is not a result of me being a registered user, nor it is the result of the fact that I have been actively editing these articles for a period of nearly two years. Instead, it is merely the result of the extensive knowledge on the development background and the in-game lore of this franchise which I can to contribute to these articles. This is exemplified by the fact that, for example, I am able to bring the content that you have been disputing in line with Wiki guidelines to a point you no longer find yourself with the means to remove it under a reasonable rationale. This may be well be indicative of a few things.

Secondly, when I state that you have removed relevant information from an article without providing any edit summary or rationale, I am stating a fact. The notion that the warnings on your IPs talk page may have been the result of other users was taken into consideration by me from the beginning, but at the same time I had no confirmation that this indeed was the case. These two things combined prompted me to revert your edits. And rightfully so.

Lastly, all I have received from you throughout this discussion is a dismissive attitude, accusations and presumptions of your own. It has been enough. Feel perfectly free to take your case to other editors or to call in a third opinion on the talk page of the Global Defense Initiative article. I'm quite used to these sorts of discussions. I'm also quite used to eventually having the final say in them. Incidentally, that too tends to be the result of matters entirely unrelated to my supposed "ego" or "sense of entitlement". Kalamrir (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDI[edit]

I'll leave it to you handle the articlepages, though I strongly suggest that before you do any overhauling on the page - in particular with regard to adding material to the page - you take a look at boneyard located at User:Neil/gc. Proto's has already identified this article as being a cruft page, and it will in time have an afd filed asking for its deletion; when that time come the best defenses will be a page deviod about half the uneeded material there now and a page with citations. This isn't meant to be a meant post, nor is it meant to discuorage you from editting the page, but I see in you enthusaism for the page my former self, and since 50% of the C&C material I had originally created for wikipedia has been deleted I am trying not to lose anymore pages related to the series. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll be sourcing this article to the best of my abilities to prevent allegations of original research, unsourced/unverified statements and also to establish a higher measure of notability for it. With the proper rewrites, that shouldn't prove to be too much of an issue given C&C's own notability as a major video game franchise. As for the cruft part, we'll deal with that as the comments come in, and then handle it on a case-by-case basis as needed.

I wish you a swift recovery, by the way. Kalamrir (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion C&C[edit]

Yes and because it is an important game it should have more, for example take a look at Halo:_Combat_Evolved#Reception to get an idea of how it should look like and obviously any information on influence on other games, etc. JTBX (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this as time allows. I have access to a lot of things which can serve as reliable source material and third-party references, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Kalamrir (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, keep up the good work JTBX (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE[edit]

Oh, sorry about that. What I meant was that I felt the quotboxes were in odd locations. I fixed one of them, but that wasn't exactly the point I wanted to make. I declined the promotion from Start to B class because of lack of references (especially in such a large article), fair-use images in high resolution, lists in the beginning of the article, and some other minor things. However, the article could easily achieve GA if you conduct a serious ref-adding spree. The prose is really great, I have to admit. Cut down on the "Command & Conquer" section, add lots of references, and this can be sent to the GAN. I wasn't really clear on that, sorry. --haha169 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Kalamrir (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three revert rule on Template:Command & Conquer series as reported on WP:AN3. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein 22:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kalamrir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

One user was continously altering a template revision six users had formed through consensus. This warranted instant reverting of that one user's edits in my judgment. I'm afraid I must contest the block for this reason.

Decline reason:

If you read WP:3RR, you'll see there are several exceptions to the three revert rule. However, you will also see that your edits are not acceptable, and were a clear cut violation of the rule. To quote: "Content changes, adding or removing tags, edits which are against consensus, and similar items are not exempt". After your block expires, please refrain from edit warring. If you find yourself in the midst of an edit war, consider requesting full protection of the page. - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Don't bother. I am sick to my stomach of this website, and disruptive users such as A Man In Black. Delete this Kalamrir account at once, for if you don't, I'll surely give you valid reason to when this ban expires. Understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalamrir (talk • contribs)

I realize it is extremely frustrating to be blocked, but the template will still be there when your block expires. Comments like the one you made above are not helpful, and I find most editors regret making such threats after they've stepped away from the keyboard for a few hours. If you no longer wish to contribute, that is your right, but unfortunately we cannot delete your account or its contributions. Best of luck, auburnpilot talk 23:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C&C Template[edit]

Hi Kalamnir, thanks for letting me know about that. I've disambiguated "Allies" to the WW2 Allies for accuracy, and hopefully it won't get repeatedly reverted. Gutted you're blocked just now, I don't much fancy my chances of keeping the template the way it is without you! Hopefully things won't be dead when you get back, and hopefully between us and Mr Stalker we can sort something out. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in inappropriate canvassing[edit]

Hello, Kalamrir. I've just noticed that you have been canvassing users regarding the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#What links are appropriate in navboxes? ([2][3][4][5]) By only notifying editors who (at least in your estimation) agree with your position, the current display of the template, it appears that you are attempt to influence the outcome, rather than broaden the scope of discussion. This practice is sometimes called "votestacking", and is viewed as a disruptive procedure. Should you decide to continue working with Wikipedia when you are no longer blocked (and I hope you will), I would ask that you refrain from such behavior. Pagra shtak 03:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the notion that I have been canvassed by this user - I was involved in the discussion which led to the acceptance by consensus of the template as it stood, therefore I had a standing interest in discussions relating to it. Please keep accusations of canvassing appropriate, because this one clearly isn't.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Actually it is. I was told I was a proponent of a viewpoint that I am not, and asked to comment as such on a talk discussion. That is canvassing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking my previous comment after seeing sense Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kalamrir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Shut this fucking account down now, or you'll find this isn't even the start of my abuse of priviliges. This website and it users make me fucking sick to my stomach.

Decline reason:

Nice. And you still want unblocked, yeah? — weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks to that unblock request, I'm upping the block to indef. We don't tolerate incivility. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking my user talk page certainly won't help.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer Task Force[edit]

A request for comment has been added to the talk page of the Command & Conquer Task Force. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to this discussion. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for File:GDI Patrol in a red zone.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GDI Patrol in a red zone.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Faction gdi talon.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Faction gdi talon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Faction gdi zocom.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Faction gdi zocom.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CC3 TiberiumInfectedHuman.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CC3 TiberiumInfectedHuman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kane rawin95 quote.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kane rawin95 quote.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]