User talk:Kizor/Archive3

Canon merge

I see you removed the tag suggesting a merge from Canon (fiction) to fictional universe with the extra comment that there was no discussion. Just to clarify there was discussion (on the [[Talk:Fictional universe#Proposed merge with Canon (fiction)|fictional universe talk page) - there wasn't much discussion and it was against a merge, although something needed doing with the canon entry and that has been done since the tags went up so it was right to remove them. (Emperor 12:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Cool. Thank you for a prompt answer. --Kizor 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reversion of Master of Orion

Hey there! Unfortunately that revert was accidental, but I thought it hadn't been saved. In the vandalism rush yesterday, 'MOO' was flagged up as potential vandalism by my script - so I hit revert after a glance at the edit - then had a double take at it and closed the reversion window. Seems I didn't get there in time. Sorry about that - but keep up the good work! --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I called it a vandalism rush, basically there was a sudden surge in the volume of vandalism being done during several hours a few evenings ago - and I was using an RC filter to help catch and revert a lot of the vandalism. With there being so many bad edits, I was running behind quite a lot and was trying to get it all cleared quickly. Unfortunately, I made a couple of errors while doing that. --[[User:Sagaciousuk|Sagaciousuk]1] ^(talk) 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there some kind of warning system or other way of getting the word about such surges around? I want in on the action the next time around. --Kizor 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I use the Wdefcon banner system to monitor the general vandalism level. When it gets to level 2 or 1, then it's a 'rush'. There are many styles of banner - I placed the nautical version on my userpage. All are updated at the same time - usually by someone who has noticed a change in vandalism levels. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet AfD

Hi. I added references from the comic's (Finnish) page, stating its featurings in notable independent media. You mentioned needing better sources, so does this help any? I'll keep looking for more proof, but I'll also have to cram the entire history of Western thought by Friday morning and I'm only up to Descartes. Also, you're a girl? Ewww. --Kizor 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're a girl? Ewww.

Eww? What do you mean? Yes, I am female.

Changed my !vote at the AfD too. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the vote! As for that thing, it was a joke that fell flatter than intended. Think Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes. --Kizor 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_005.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Orion_005.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_001.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Orion_001.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_006.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Orion_006.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. --Kizor 13:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Character listing

Hi. I noticed that you reverted the character listing on the Evil Inc. page. Thank you.

I just wanted a clarification. I believe that, even without explicit permission, listing a comic's characters isn't a violation of copyright. Is there a Wikipedia policy one way or another? I'd just like to have something to point people at if this kind of thing happens again.

Thanks. TomXP411 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it as a given. In my 3+ years here this is the first time I've seen this. Odds are that whoever did that will shut up soon enough with no long-term consequences, but if he doesn't, I'll put up a note at the smart people's noticeboard and ask for one. --Kizor 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this article will be a hotspot for a while - both good and bad. Thank you again for the help. It's appreciated. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs).

Hey, any time. Welcome to the tour of the sausage factory, folks. ;) --Kizor 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I’ve briefly compared the character list in the article with the character list on the Evil Inc. website. They’re different enough that I think ours is not a copy. IANAL, but just listing the characters of a webcomic with brief descriptions is not generally a copyright infringement. —xyzzy_n 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The noob

Just seen your talk page messages to the SPAs. To be honest I was thinking delete anyway, I just wanted to add a humourous comment on there as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would've been severely disappointed in any oher case. It's true, though, SPA attacks breed hostility. --Kizor 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Snort

[1] - brenneman 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I'm not at all sure why you are making apeals to the authority of another wikipedia editor,[2] but if you're going to, it's probably worth noting that you're quoting from the the "keep" reasoning an editor used for an article [3] that was ultimately overwhelmingly deleted. In other words, they were wrong. It's also probably worth noting that you are quoting from an editor with a long history of incivil comments and personal attacks against me. Why are you doing this? Are you trying to harrass me? Here's an idea: Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Dragonfiend 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Sandifer's argument and it's better phrased and worded than what I can do. Therefore, I quoted it. I'm frustratingly inarticulate, you know. Hm - though to be fair there's no denying that there would've been an element of name-dropping involved. Still, the point was what was said. No personal attack was meant or, from my viewpoint, made. You argued, I disagreed with your argument and went on to explain my reasoning. I dispassionately think that your interpretation of WP:OR is not the one that is in use or should be in use. As for you and Sandifer, I was unaware that the two of you had any kind of history of incivility and I apologize for any uncomfort or feelings of harassment invoking him caused.

I am, however, unimpressed with the way you jumped at the conclusion that I was making a personal attack without hearing an explanation. In particular since "about the content, not the contributor" is in so many words what I've been saying myself in that AfD to keep the discussion away from its nominator. --Kizor 07:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to fail to grasp is that the statement you are quoting was soundly rejected by wikipedia consensus. Also, I did not jump to any conclusion that you were trying to make a personal attack; I simply reminded you to foucus on content and not contributors. And yes, you are quoting from someone whom the Wikipedia arbitration committee found to be making personal attacks and uncivil comments towards me, including comments about how my webcomics edits make him feeling like killing people. So, I think you need to read his comments within that context, and refrain from repeating them. If you want to have a discussion about WP:OR, let's go ahead, but avoid throwing around out-of-context quotes from people with a history of harrassing me. --Dragonfiend 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, right. You simply gave me a reminder that was linked to WP:NPA immediately after bringing up that I might be trying to harass you, because you say I was not focusing on content but on contributors. But at no point did you explicitly and incontrovertibly state that I was making personal attacks. --Kizor 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. What I'm saying is that if it isn't your goal to harrass me, then you should comment on content and not contributors and stop posting out of context quotes from people who have a history of personal attacks and incivility towards me. Do you disagree with this? -- Dragonfiend 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm stopping using that quote if it causes that strong a reaction in you! At what point do you claim I commented on contributors and not content? I have made no statement whatsoever on your character! --Kizor 08:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a history of talking about me[4] [5] [6] rather than the contents of articles or wikipedia policy. I'm asking you again to avoid this. In other words, stop making and repeating substanceless comments about me, and instead comment on content. I am not content. Is that clear enough? --Dragonfiend 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All right. Very well. I will not make substanceless comments about you and instead focus on your content, because this is polite and proper. At the same time, I very much deny "having a history" of doing so. Your first two links are the two instances in last October, over four months ago, where I used "acerbically" to describe your writing style. To the best of my knowledge, that means 'harshly' or 'sharply'. I said, in passing and only in passing, that you write harshly. I do not feel that this was an attack in any way. If you feel that this single adjective about your writing style was excessive or insulting, I apologize. I have already retracted those at the end of October when you confronted me over a foolish burst of slight incivility, at which point I also apologized, though never got a response. Your third link I've read many times, and I just can't see anything there that would attack or address you. I will endeavor to treat you with civility because to do otherwise is inane and pointless, and I have no intention of harassing you, but I cannot "stop making or repeat[ing] substanceless comments" about you, because I have never started.
If that is clear, I wish to drop this discussion. It's not that I yield to your other points, but we're getting nowhere fast. That said, I do not wish to leave bad blood between us. We may be rowing in entirely different directions, but we're in the same boat.--Kizor 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. -- Dragonfiend 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you just deleted my answers to your questions: If you're not interested in hearing my messages, could you say so so that I won't have to go to the fair trouble of writing them? If you think the message was inappropriate, can you tell me how so that I can pay more attention to how I write to you if I do so in the future? If you were just doing talk page maintenance, please smack me with a fish. --Kizor 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved your quotes here because there's no reason to have a redundant conversation over multiple talk pages. I am watching your talk page, so I will see any response here. -- Dragonfiend 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kizor/Sore Thumbs

as requested. GRBerry 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The God's Pack

The content of the deleted article has been placed at User:Kizor/The God's Pack. Please let me know as soon as you've copied it somewhere else. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. I have to further request a copypaste of the article's history, though. --Kizor 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot! Sorry. Here's what the undelete page tells me:

1. 10:19, 19 September 2006 . . Bluebot (Talk | contribs | block) (fixing header errors per the MOS)
2. 23:42, 17 September 2006 . . Hahnchen (Talk | contribs | block) (afd)
3. 15:42, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Sean)
4. 15:37, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Letty)
5. 15:33, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Lewin)
6. 15:29, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Patrick)
7. 15:26, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Zi)
8. 15:25, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Zi)
9. 15:23, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Zi)
10. 15:22, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Silver)
11. 15:16, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Zigor)
12. 15:09, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Morrigan)
13. 15:04, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Facts)
14. 15:02, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Sena)
15. 14:57, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Djin)
16. 14:53, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Corrigan)
17. 14:48, 26 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Tal)
18. 19:17, 25 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (Facts)
19. 18:56, 25 August 2006 . . Wolfsilvermoon (Talk | contribs | block) (The Gods' Pack)

The format is time, date, username (...), edit summary. That's what I can give you anyway. In order to access the undelete page itself you'd have to be an admin. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Retention of history in off-site migrations

See User talk:Kizor/Sore Thumbs. The point is just to have a list of all (potential) authors, so such a list is sufficient. To access the history of a deleted article, you need administrator privileges (or, as in this case, an administrator), but since the issue is not to restore the article on Wikipedia and there have been no irregularities in the deletion process, WP:DRV should be unnecessary. —xyzzy_n 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Roswell That Ends Well

The reason I removed the quote is that there is an ongoing effort in the wikiproject to remove the various quotes sections from articles. I have been explicitly told that quotes belong on Wikiquote and while I argued against it at the time (see my talk page and this archive) I have since come to terms with the fact that consensus seems to be against me. As such I felt explicitly calling out quotes went against this effort and while I agree that one quote shouldn't be a problem I have seen how these things get out of hand. I agree that putting quotes directly into the plot summary also tends to hamper flow and if I had my way I would simply remove those as well however I've never gotten around to re-reading all the articles and removing them. I understand that some people have a different opinion on these matters however so I'm willing to put it back and see what happens if you'd prefer.

Other than that I thought the rewrite seemed pretty good. Don't take my massive number of Futurama edits as indicating I know what I'm doing though. I edit because it's fun and I edit the same pages over and over because I'm obsessive, not knowledgeable. Stardust8212 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for the explanation, and for the feedback. While I agree with your view, there's little point in tilting against the windmills on this issue, and having witnessed the kind of creep collaborative editing can cause, I see the others' point. The situation would be fundamentally different with quotes that are an integral part of their work, but since this is merely an awesome one I'll just re-insert it into the summary. --Kizor 02:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Update

Hello again, Kizor! Yep, I'm back and online. Just moved from Osaka to Vancouver. A bit of culture shock, that's the be sure.

While I hadn't really had the time to sit down and go through all the comings and goings of the web-comic subsection of Wikipedia, I was keeping my eye on the general trends. Thanks much for the detailed update though, as it gives me a better feel for where things have been going.

I guess I just wish we had a really clear set of guidelines that would help us determine what's notable and what isn't. Our current guidelines in WP:WEB seem to cause a fair amount of friction with the fanbases of these comics. I think we can agree that there shouldn't a Wiki entry for every comic; My 6-year-old cousin's weekly strip about his cat is clearly in the realm of non-notable.

I guess what we need to do is hash out some solid guidelines that people in both camps can be happy with. As long as it fits within WP:RS and Wikipedia:Attribution I'm all ears. :)

Thanks for the welcome back too. It's nice to know there's a sense of community here. It's what keeps me coming back. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kerflufle

At the moment, things are quiet and have returned to something approaching normal. --Kizor 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like things got a little heated for a couple days. The majority of it is over on my talk page. Your thoughts on the matter? --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Looks like I really need that aspirin right about now." I'll let you know when other ones start to turn up. --Kizor 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tech shooting

Kizor, thanks for the work on protecting and fact checking the Virginia Tech massacre page. --Daysleeper47 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I do what I can, because I can. --Kizor 17:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop moving the page. The talk page is now floating somewhere in the infinite void. The title is not the top priority right now --Wafulz 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Already had. I moved the article only once, to the agreed version. Can you fix the talk page? --Kizor 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Work at Virginia Tech massacre

I feel I can award you no barn star, wikibat or similar honour. Merely the humblest Large Pat On The Back for your fantastic efforts at updating a rapidly changing article in such a proficient fashion!! Good work and way faster than me!!! Happy Editing. Pedro |  Chat  21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be cool would be to see a script parse the history of an article like this one (once editing calmed down) and give stats like # of edits per minute, # edits per users, etc. Thanks, BTW, for all your work on the article -- you've been there for hours I see! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also salute you, very nice work indeed. I could barely post on the talk page without edit conflicts, so I recognize your hardwork editing the article. Thanks. -- Vince 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Yes, indeedy, you deserve this for your citefixing at Virginia Tech massacre. I fixed a reference cite a couple of times, but nothing like what you did. Good on ya, mate! Yksin 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for fixing my reference. I couldn't figure out what I had missed to fix that and I kept gettin gedit conflicted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Active/Passive Voice On VTM

I don't think I'm the one who changed it to passive. I merely tried to clean it up some. If you look at this edit, you can see it was already passive before I tweaked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Tech_massacre&diff=next&oldid=123794748 "It left at least 33 people..." -- that's passive voice and that's what was there before I made the next edit. I agree that it should be an active voice, but I just tried to clean up what was there already. I hope this helps. Ikilled007 13:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Victims at Virginia Tech -- okay, sorry

(copied from my user page)

I'd agree that a brief mention of how many people died, whether they're faculty members or students, etc. is relevant, but I disagree with the need for all the names to be listed. But: okay sorry, let's discuss it there. The whole "delete everything" crew is very aggressive, I just found a user who seems to be making a habit of changing all the articles currently in AfD, including the List of victims page, into redirects. I thought this was part of their whole effort. --Yksin 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. Talking this over should give far better results than undoing each other's work. If that's what that crew is up to, I can't by any means fault you... though you obviously haven't been around me very much if you thought me a deletionist. :P
I never did take the time to thank you for the barnstar, didn't I? Thank you. --Kizor 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't take time to investigate thoroughly, to find out which person specifically added that stuff back, after it had been removed a couple of times before. I did know you weren't the person who has been unilaterally changing disputed articles that are currently in AfD into redirects. I discovered s/he's done that to several pages, all of them reverted by someone or another, & have reported the person to admin.

And... you're welcome! --Yksin 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

working on an article about VT Massacre page -- and wanted to talk to you about your role. idea is to see how something so coherent can be created by so many people. do you have time for an interview?

Bahamut Lagoon

Heh, saw your comment... I technically should revert it, but I sincerely couldn't agree more. So maybe I was distracted and didn't notice that comment, who knows. :D Cheers, --Sn0wflake 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

stars

Sure, I take barnstars, although I haven't made a little gallery thing yet (no time to figure out how). I feel like other people have been more instrumental in generating the content - I've just been doing my usual spelling, grammar, punctuation, and reference formatting. And trying to guide people on the talk page to policy, which seems to be a team effort! Natalie 03:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Guybrush

Hi Kizor! I think we may be using different standards of what constitutes "blond" here... In every one of the images you posted on my talk page, his hair is clearly sandy blond, not brown. It's certainly not platinum blond or bright yellow as it is in the later games, but I think that's attribuatble to their more cartoonish look--colors get simplified and brightened. My original comment, by the way, was in reference to the closeup shots from MI1, like this one [7], which I would describe as extremely light/platinum blond, even compared to the in-game sprite. The only time I can think of that his hair looked more on the brown side was in MI2, but even there it's a bit more dirty blond and probably darkened because they made it longer in that game, and it's clearly dark blond on the cover. Dinoguy2 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: erfworld

I guess I wasn't clear. I have a tendency to not get the meaning I have across with the words I use. The reason I removed the "endearment" stuff is because 3-4 points of evidence does not represent a trend. It amounted to original research and assumptions about reasons for things. Of all things on wikipedia, I try to fight OR the hardest. Possibly too much, but that's a whole other matter. i kan reed 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful for your efforts against OR and remove speculation on sight myself. But while we're talking theory (this is irrelevant to the issue of Erfworld, I admit it), it is possible and indeed not that uncommon to go overboard. My own principle is that there is no need to source the obvious. This would naturally be disastrous in wider use, but it's not in wider use, only a single person's case-by-case guideline. Too strict OR criteria and too zealous enforcement can damage our content, which is entirely counterproductive.
Take, for instance, the strategy game Bahamut Lagoon: at this very moment, an editor is forbidding all mention of the game's graphics being advanced. The game was released in 1996 for a system that was active circa 1990-1996; it's an uncontested fact that its graphics are advanced. Every person who's owned a SNES can attest to that. Yet we're kept from mentioning it, and it does the article nothing but harm.
Then there was the Pretty Face article: The series has a doctor who repeatedly tries to perform a nonconsensual sex change on the protagonist because of how cute he'd look. I got into a minor dispute with a person who thought that calling this doctor "eccentric," never mind "strange," would be an unacceptable intrusion of personal value systems.
Or, as I've just found out, the ongoing attempt to destroy spoiler warnings, therefore IMAO hamstringing our entire coverage of fiction, has seen people seriously claiming that calling anything - anything - a spoiler or not a spoiler is original research and must be removed.
We need to be firm, but it's clear enough that we also need a slight degree of flexibility, and that zero-tolerance works here about as well as it does in U.S. high schools. --Kizor 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kamen1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Kamen1.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MOO3 1.png

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:MOO3 1.png) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/MOO. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Qfg4fighter.jpg

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Qfg4fighter.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/Notes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Qfg4paladin.jpg

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Qfg4paladin.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/Notes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Qfg4thief.jpg

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Qfg4thief.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/Notes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Qfg4wizard.jpg

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Qfg4wizard.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/Notes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One of these days I'm going to learn, folks. --Kizor 11:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Babelfish-right.gif

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Babelfish-right.gif) was found at the following location: User:Kizor. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Screw you, bot. --Kizor 05:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Elgoonishshive grace.jpg

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Elgoonishshive grace.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/Repository. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:El Goonish Shive v1-Read or the Owl Will Eat You.jpg

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:El Goonish Shive v1-Read or the Owl Will Eat You.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/Repository. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeaaaaaaaigh! --Kizor 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Master of Orion cover.jpg

Hello, Kizor. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Master of Orion cover.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/MOO. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aiyeaaaa'aAaAaAaagh! --Kizor 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orion 000.png

Hello Kizor, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Orion 000.png) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/MOO. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orion 001.png

Hello Kizor, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Orion 001.png) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/MOO. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orion 005.png

Hello Kizor, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Orion 005.png) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/MOO. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orion 006.png

Hello Kizor, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Orion 006.png) was found at the following location: User:Kizor/MOO. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing edit summary

You seem to have neglected to use an edit summary or make a comment on talk when you reverted Valen. Phil Sandifer 04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This was because my act and intention were minor and obvious. --Kizor 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the edit was not vandalism, I tend to think that undiscussed reversion is almost certainly poor form. Phil Sandifer 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Said edit and those of its kind might just breach WP:POINT, but you're right in that a 'rv' would've been appropriate. --Kizor 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes spoiler tags, don't add them back. The whole point of the RFC is to decide whether or not they are of any use to Wikipedia. Some of us are being bold and getting rid of them where they surely shouldn't be in the first place. Encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings. Fansite message boards do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The matter is not undisputed. You do not have consensus. You have a conflict of interest in implementing a Wikipedia-wide change while engaged in a RfC about it. Why do you have more justification in taking them out than I have putting them in? --Kizor 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for 24 hours. The mass reversion of David's edits goes beyond what is helpful, and enters into needless edit warring. Phil Sandifer 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Undoing my work in seconds using AWB and giving me a warning would've had the same effect as a block, which also prevents me from participating in the discussion. --Kizor 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you even though it was me you were mass-reverting ... I don't hate spoilers, I've placed them myself, I just hate obviously stupid ones - David Gerard 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also point out that just about every removal I've done of an IMO inappropriate spoiler tag has stood ... which suggests that in practice, "consensus" is actually against over-spoilering - David Gerard 13:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and #¤%&@ -- that makes it entirely too difficult to check if you broke WP:AWB rules. I'll leave that to 87, who's better at it.
I point out, as devil's advocate if not anything else, that it's been less than a day, that most of those are rather low-profile articles, and that restoration of spoiler tags takes rather more thought than the usual maintenance.
As for what you've wrought, there's a reason for the redundancy that I don't think you've considered: Spoiler and endspoiler tags cordon off parts of the article, parts that often start with the plot section because that comes very early in our common article structure, but may or may not end there. Without spoiler tags, the reader must assume that the entire article can contain spoilers. Last Tuesday, I found a book on a library sale and checked our coverage. I found a two-line plot synopsis, the spoiler tag, a plot summary, the endspoiler tag, a nifty spoiler-free "themes" section, and external links. I was pleased with what I read and bought it, which I would not have been able to do without the tags.
Finally, you mentioned in the discussion that you'd support a note about it on the spoiler template itself. I agree. There's no invitation to discussion over a public matter, so a measure much bigger than, say, any webcomic AfD is currently getting considerably less exposure than one of those would. That don't jive (or whatever). If a note on the template is unacceptable, what say you to trying to get this covered on the Signpost? That would be by an outside party, and it could not count as canvassing. --Kizor 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Userfication request

Re your message: It's available on the web in a few places. See Google or ibiblio (linked to on the 5th link on the Google search). -- Gogo Dodo 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks, but I can't get the code I get from those to display as well as that of the original article. I assume that it had some kind of formatting that is not retained - note that the answers.com environment is different from MediaWiki, never mind the raw code. --Kizor 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: I copied the code to User:Kizor/Carddeck. Leave me another note and I'll delete the article once you have a copied saved. -- Gogo Dodo 07:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I found the <pre> tags and that should solve the formatting problem. Fire away. --Kizor 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: You're welcome. =) Article deleted. -- Gogo Dodo 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On spoilers

Thanks for that, I must have misunderstood the question. I have changed to support. G1ggy! 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. Glad to be of help! --Kizor 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha

"My philosophy courses are urging me to engage you in a massive debate about our ability to know the truth at all." --Kizor 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know! This one time in philosophy class, we were asked a series of factual questions and also how certain we could be about our answers. There was this one question that no one had any idea about. We had just learned about different methods for determining truth so I suggested that we take a vote on it and whatever we decided would become truth. Suffices to say it was hilarious. Axem Titanium 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Malice? Never. To be honest, I've realized that it is profoundly difficult to change anyone's mind anyway. *sigh* All that discussion. It must be 400kb by now, at least. I wonder how many people actually switched sides over the course of the entire thing. Axem Titanium 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course not malice. It's nevertheless good to be reminded of that when the debate gets emotional.
It could be that we need to puzzle out in detail how to make arguments effective online, or it could be that this asynchronous indirect medium just lacks the kind of connection that's needed for convincing others. Either way, very few. I was by mentality a holy warrior looking for a holy war to begin with, and I'm now aware of the potential effects of spoiler warnings on articles but consider them insignificant, while the big names on the other side seem to scarcely even acknowledge the effect their removal has on the readership. Before you sink into despair, what the debate does do is convince the fence-sitters, the incoming people with no strong convictions for either side. --Kizor 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Whodunnits & spoilers

Thanks for your comment and especially for the kind words about my contributions. It's nice to be noticed. I have been following the discussion about spoilers with great interest and I think you have made a number of excellent points (and so have others, which means I'm still up in the air about the issue). What I've decided is that, since I will be working quite a bit in the whodunnit area, I will only contribute material that does not reveal the identity of the murderer or any key plot points that would spoil anyone's enjoyment, and from now on I will not be adding spoiler warnings since I don't intend to spoil anyone's potential enjoyment with anything I contribute. As a former book reviewer of mysteries whose clients refused to accept material containing spoilers, I know this is possible and I'll work that way. For the rest of it, I will wait to see what consensus is achieved and, if/when it is, I shall abide by it. May I add that it is a pleasure to see everyone on all sides of this issue taking it seriously and working hard to create a better resource for the world. It might be difficult to remember sometimes when people are being unkind or obtuse, but we are all working together to create a legacy of information, and that's the important thing. Thank you for taking this issue seriously and giving it your best efforts. I'm sufficiently new at this that I'm not aware if there is an appropriate "hug" or "handshake" barnstar for hard efforts in a good cause, but if I knew of one, I would award it to you. Accounting4Taste 17:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Peters Fate

I thought that Linderman, Nathan Petrelli, and Angela Petrelli all say that Peter will survive thanks to Claire. When Nathan learns of having to do this explosion in .07%. I am not 100% positive but that was my first reaction when I saw the season finale monday night. I figured where ever he blows up he will survive. I liked what someone put up there the other night. "In an alternate time line..." I thought that was a good entry.

Thank You,

Aaron

Copyright status of image

Hi Kizor,

You might recall that you uploaded an image for No Rest for the Wicked, which is my favorite web-comic. I'd understood from your upload message that Andrea had put the image in the public domain, or at least the GFDL. However, some people think that her image is only "fair use". Could you clarify for me what the copyright status is, or maybe even write to Andrea herself to see whether she would be willing to release under the GFDL? If it's "fair use", I'm not allowed to use it on my user page, which is where it's been for over a year; I would be very sorry to let it go, since my wiki-friends are taking it to be a logo for me, and I love the image and the comic so much. On the other hand, I would hate to take anything away from Andrea, and I know that images in the public domain can sometimes be abused. I'll be traveling for two weeks starting tomorrow, but if you could look into it for me while I'm away, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks! :) Willow 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. Andrea said nothing of licenses when she made that version of the picture, but I'll write her and ask for GFDL release. --Kizor 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Romeo and Juliet

I hope that my "shhh" comment didn't offend you or anything...that was a bit of humor. (yes I can be funny sometimes; I am human) I'm not forcing you to do anything, but I really don't see any problem with your edit, especially since it still does bring up some very good points. But...that's up to you.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I might be a bit too neurotic or over-critical about my own comments after spending the better part of the last two weeks in a constant hopeless battle for the spoiler tags, so I've put it back. Here's hoping it doesn't create new openings. --Kizor 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hi, and thanks for the symbol.

Writing to you also gives me the chance to ask you a question: This morning you posted the following message to the "gory death" deletion page:

Hey. Chill. Please take a break and a breather or something. You know that that the statement about experts (apparently meaning people who have seen the film in question) was badly phrased - by sticking to ridiculing the word choice of a non-native English speaker instead of addressing the issue, you give an impression of yourself that you might not want to give. That's how I'm reading the situation, anyway. --Kizor 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To whom is that message addressed? Why was the statement (WHICH statement??) "about experts" "badly phrased"? Who is ridiculing whom?

Thanks in advance, and best wishes, <KF> 18:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity

Thanks for the words and symbol, if my computer can get over its slowdown I'll put it on my main userpage. However, I'm not sure what really needs to be hammered out about spoilers. When I work on articles, my rule of thumb was to give only an overview of the basic plot in the opening and then as the summary expanded to include a Spoiler warning, especially if it contained any plot twists or things typically found in the last act (like the climax). To me arguing over spoilers is disheartenly pointless.

It's funny you mentioned optimism because I just told someone I recently met last night that Wikipedia feels like it's on the edge of collapse, about to implode from in-fighting and not enough admin. control. The fact that a couple of guys could just send out a few edit bots to gleefully delete 45,000 entries from articles without raising any alarms for other administrators is a frightening idea. Too many seem to confuse editing with oppression of ideas. It's one thing to have your words rearranged and unsupported facts eventually deleted, but time is too valuable to me and others to watch entire entries be deleted on the basis of "relevence" and other "real" encyclopedia criteria.

Unless Wikipedia is making the case that they just don't have the server capacity who really gives a fuck if some obscure band is listed or articles have 20 external links? The more they try to make it like like a serious, "big time" encyclopedia the more they remind everyone that it isn't and I should reach for my Britanicas sitting not 2 feet away. RoyBatty42 22:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your interest in By the Waters of Babylon

Hi, thanks for your interest in By the Waters of Babylon. I agree that readers may be interested in works related to it. However WP policy says that we must give verifiable sources. If you know of a review or critical study that says one of the works you listed is related to BWB, then it can be added in the article. --Jtir 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your msg on my talk page. Please don't pass out. Will start a section at Talk:By the Waters of Babylon. --Jtir 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity

Thanks, I've posted it on my userpage. Kuronue 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As have I. And thanks for your help on other matters as well. I'll be good. ;) Killer Poet 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility in AfDs

Hi,

I'm sorry for getting so angry on the 'list of gory death scenes' AfD - I was tired and frustrated, but that doesn't make it appropriate behaviour. I may go back and edit what I wrote now to make it more civil, and I'll definitely try to keep my editing WP:COOL in future. I hope this makes up for any hurt I may have caused. Terraxos 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a great sign of character to eat one's words. I have no hard feelings.
I was planning to discuss your argument in detail, but that fell by the wayside what with the AfD's closing and all. As it is, I'm wondering if you're up for doing so now as preliminary research for my upcoming plan to bring the article to the film wikiproject and, with any luck, hammer out a version that addresses the grievances. It stuck out in particular that you open with "What purpose does this page serve?". A short distance above, I'd made a list of people to whom it can serve a purpose. --Kizor 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination)

It appears that you reverted the clsoe of this. Dis you intend to do that, or was it an edit conflict or what?

"Or what." I was improving my arguments for the projectification of the article (which I thank you for acknowledging), and didn't even get a conflict box. I will request projectification when I can find the time; Fortunately, the closure of this AfD brings the number of my current major conflicts down to two. Unfortunately, one of them will require taking on David Gerard, Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer simultaneously. Expect getting bugged about the specifics within two weeks.

I can cry travesty until I'm blue in the face, but there was no actual breach of procedure, so DRV is out. Moving the article to project-space seems like the only option. This is too large a job for a single person, and even if it wasn't, it'll just meet its fourth AfD immediately if it doesn't get a communal consensus before reposting. --Kizor 23:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking on that trio should be intersting, I have had run-ins with all three myself, and they are not among my favorite wikipeide editors. But they do know what they are doing, they are not sutpid (although they can be foolish IMO) and DG in particular has a large positive reputation on wikipeida.

Back to the topic at hand. I don't know why you didn't get a conflict warning -- check the history to see what wound up happening. Maybe it was somehow becauase i had just gotten an edit conflict warning that was still unresolved? Anyway, you say "I can cry travesty until I'm blue in the face..." I for one don't think thsi AfD was a travesty, even if iMO it wasn't a slam-dunk delete. The OR question is not without soem merit IMO, but leavign that and the sourcing issue asise, and the issue of what is "gory", I think ther is an argument that this list is simply not encyclopedic, or to put it anothe way, not notable. Since ther were several reasoanbel if not compelling reasons to delete, IMO the numbers rule the day. and the numbers were hugely for deletion.

If this is undelted and moved to user- or project-space, the history would definately coem with it, and would eventually follow it when and if it is moved back to articel space after changes are made. What happens in such a case is that the page is undelted in place, just as if the deletion had been overturned, adn themn it is moved to the user or project location, just the same as any move, and the talk page and history (and talk page history) all goes with it.

I hope that information is halpful to you. DES ^(talk) 06:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to my talk page

In this edit while leaving me a msg, you also deleted 90% of my exizxting talk page. I presume that this was not your intent, adn i admit that I am overdue for archiving. But please be more careful to avoid such edits in future. DES ^(talk) 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-spoiler ganging

Hi, you don't know me, but I've seen your arguments on Wikipedia:Spoiler's talk page and wonder if you might give me a hand. A page I helped attained featured status, Halo: Combat Evolved, has recently been targetted by multiple anti-spoiler editors. I've tried to fight back on the talk page, but they claim that there is a consensus to remove them, due to several of them appearing randomly to argue and remove the tags. If you don't find, it would be great if you could help discuss the matter on the talk page with them. Even if you don't agree with the use of a spoiler tag in this instance, a perspective besides "MUST. REMOVE. SPOILERS." would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, JimmyBlackwing 06:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddball barnstar

Thanks. The page kinda needed a little humour, I guess. *rolls eyes* -Kieran 15:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did. In the early stages I kept trying to lighten the mood by lapsing into non-sequiturs such as thanking all participants for helping improve my grasp of English, but that fell by the wayside a long time ago as [RANT OMITTED] --Kizor 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm finding myself lapsing a little into manipulation mode on that page. What's frustrating is that the policy change is being forced through, and there probably won't be any spoilers on en in a month or two's time. I'm starting to wonder, though, whether the mass removals warrant an ArbCom case. I don't really have the time and energy to push something like that through right now, however. I'm also not sure who could be named in such a case, since it seems to have been quite a few editors doing the mass removals, and there is a lot of support for that POV. Maybe the cabal mediation will be some help. I think I need to give this a break for a few days at least, though, as it's consuming far too much time. Maybe some more humour is in order... -Kieran 15:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kiroileva siili perkele.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kiroileva siili perkele.gif. 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).

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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25549&dict=CALD

Spoilers

I've recently been busy, and I dropped out of the fight about spoilers. You may not remember me, but I wrote Yet Another Complaint, and you left a message on my talk page. I'm back, and I think I am up to some more arguing, but I don't know what to do. Is there anything more effective than just writing on the talk page, where everything you write is forgotten in a few days? Or is that what we need to do--flood the talk page with logical arguments, so that not one anti-spoiler-warning advocate gets away with saying that spoiler warnings are bad? I am looking to you and Nydas for guidance, if you can provide it. Twilight Realm 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why it's better not to give feedback

Thanks - I've already had one closure dragged to DRV because someone felt I gave an explanation of my decision because I was imposing my own opinion, not summerising the debate and explaining my decision - it's good to know someone appreciate's it. But I'll also add why it's easier to just say "delete" - it gives people less to complain about. When people see why you made a decision the way you did, they can begin disputing it - if they don't know, it's harder to dispute. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. Cheers, WilyD 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted

First of all, why did you revert my changes instead of discussing? Secondly, aren't you aware that merging doesn't need to be the decision on AfD for it to be done? Don't you think having all these related separate articles is problematic? Andre (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And besides, looking at the AfD, I count around 9 people who suggest a merge. If anything, that's where consensus lies. "Merge all to a List of Star Control races article. While I see that the notable nature of this game means such information should be covered, I don't feel the current depth of coverage is justified." "I might consider a merge into one of those giant omnibus lists that seem to be increasingly popular these days, maybe, but I don't think it would be an improvement over separate articles and it certainly wouldn't be a deletion." "Merge all to a list article or to the game articles. Appearances in rather prominent games mean they're significant enough to discuss in some capacity; however, they're not really prominent enough for articles of their own. Definitely notable enough for a list... somewhere." "While I can see the validity of merging to a List of Star Control species article, turning them into redirects would be an immense disservice." "Merge all to a race article, if that means Keeping them for now and taking more time to do it then so be it. " Etc. Andre (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, take your time and think out your responses (I'll do the same). Anyway, I think that in the AfD, people were voting Keep because they didn't want the articles deleted -- neither do I. In fact, I created most of them (Melnorme Ilwrath Kohr-Ah Kzer-Za Utwig Slylandro VUX Yehat Syreen Druuge Thraddash Chmmr Shofixti Androsynth Mmrnmhrm, check the page history) and uploaded most of the pictures (Image:Arilou.png Image:Chmmr.png Image:Druuge.png Image:Ilwrath.png Image:Melnorme.png Image:Mycon.png Image:Orz.png Image:Shofixti.png Image:Slylandro.png Image:Spathi.png Image:Supox.png Image:Syreen.png Image:Talking Pet.png Image:Thraddash.png Image:Umgah.png Image:Pkunk.png Image:Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah.png Image:Ur-Quan Kzer-Za.png Image:Utwig.png Image:VUX.png Image:Yehat.png Image:ZoqFotPik.png) and I'm just a big Star Control II fan (though SC3 is a travesty). There's just no point in having separate articles -- much of the information (especially the Ur-Quan stuff) is incredibly redundant, and each race really isn't notable enough for its own article. Also, I agree that the current size of the merged article is problematic, but much of the content in the articles as they now stand violates our policies: WP:PLOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:VG/GL, WP:NOT, WP:ATT, WP:REF, and many others. They will have to be trimmed a great deal to meet our policies and I think the size issue will disappear. Andre (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about trolls on my talk page. Let's talk about Star Control! Andre (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well? Andre (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey Request: VT massacre article

Hi, I am a professor at Boston College studying the development of the Wikipedia page on the Virginia Tech massacre. You were one of the top 5% of editors to the page, and I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a brief survey about your participation.

• The survey can be found at: User:Geraldckane/survey (your response will be by email).
• Information about my research can be found at: User:Geraldckane

Your participation will help me (and hopefully the Wikipedia community) better understand the collaborative process that results in exemplary articles. If you do not wish to participate and this solicitation was unwelcome, please accept my apologies and simply delete this message from your talk page. I will not contact you again.

--geraldckane 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your quote at jossi's page

I just love the quote by you at the top of jossi's user page: The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work. --Coppertwig 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's marvellous, isn't it? Concise, insightful and hilarious. It's also not mine, but the Zeroeth Law of Wikipedia from Raul's laws. After I quoted it in a New York Times interview in April *basks in glow of own vanity for a moment*, it's been occasionally attributed to me, but the true author is unknown. I've dropped jossi a note, but she doesn't seem to have caught it. Don't feel embarassed - you couldn't know - but instead enjoy the list, if for some reason you weren't aware of it. --Kizor 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Notabiltiy and fiction

Fiction has a subject specific guideline at: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Kevin Murray 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Departure of User:JzG

Sup. I'm procrastinating and noticed that you never did seem to get a proper answer to your wondering about why JzG left while you were away. It was a simple and un-flashy affair: apparently he just couldn't deal with the idiots any longer, counting by both the amount of people an editor meets and the slowly shifting personal definition of "idiot." It had been on the cards for a bit; he was getting short-tempered, acerbic and rather trigger-happy. Or he might have always been that way. I didn't really know him. He left a "so much for that" - type message on his user and user talk pages but continued editing relatively normally for a few days while the support poured in, then his user page was deleted as user request and he hasn't been seen since. --Kizor 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight on what happened. I just found it so surprising that in a matter of a month several prolific and presumably helpful editors had "left". Anyway, thanks again. : ) - jc37 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call

Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add {{User WP Harry Potter}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

Are you kidding?

What in the world is this?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I kind of get what you are doing now but can you move it to something like Emil i Lönneberga (temporary) so it won't look like unadulterated vandalism on recent changes? And which article precisely needs to be deleted once the moves are complete?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Phew, seems like admin Kmccoy handled it just fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Harry Potter parodies AfD

Do you know how long the AfD will remain up? There are currently two separate pages on Harry Potter parodies; List of Harry Potter parodies and Parodies of Harry Potter. Wikipedia doesn't need two, so I intend to merge them. I can't however, while the AfD is in place. Serendi^podous 11:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It may vary a bit, but I believe it'll be two days from when you posed that question. Note that the latter is a collection of previously independent articles of major parodies, apparently made without knowledge of the former's existence; I advocate undoing this, returning them to their own articles and making sure that these are linked to on the list. All (except probably Porri Gatter) stand perfectly well onn their own, reducing them to a sentence or two on the list is a massive and pointless loss of information. --Kizor 23:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to merge the articles whole, while deleting whichever parodies from the List... article were deemed cruft. There is a LOT of unsourced OR in the "Parodies of Harry Potter" article so it could easily be trimmed down.

As to your other comment, personally I don't see how you could write an interesting article on a fictional character without some kind of personal analysis. I mean yes, this new breed of fictional article emerging in the "serious" Wikipedia is perhaps slightly more academically rigorous, but it is neither particularly interesting to read nor, dare I say it, all that informative. Serendi^podous 05:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Fictional notability

I can certainly sympathize, since I just got back from a month's vacation that was spurred in great part by this exact argument having made Wikipedia not much fun anymore. Immediately upon returning I saw what had happened to the policy pages in my absence and about had a heart attack.

Speaking of things that'll give you a heart attack, check out Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 31#List of Akatsuki members. Somebody apparently figured out that, since WP:V uses the terminology "third party sources" when referring to reliable sources, that means anything sourced to canon is now deletable. The worst part of it is that a bunch of people are endorsing the closure since the article wasn't really necessary, not noticing the much larger issue it's setting a precedent for (or the horrid violation of the deletion guidelines for admins, but I digress). --tjstrf talk 02:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh, Guy can say what he likes. After all, now that he participated in the debate, he can't close the DRV on that logic. ;) --tjstrf talk 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animecon (Finland)

Hi there. I see you undid my overly bold merger. I'll change my !vote to keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the right thing to do in the circumstances, the circumstances just changed. And thanks! It's nice to see AfDs that are not clashes of wiki philosophies once in a while. --Kizor 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Orion 005.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Orion 005.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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. BetacommandBot 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Orion 006.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Orion 006.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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. BetacommandBot 13:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Orion 008.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Orion 008.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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. BetacommandBot 13:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've restored the images, but please be careful how you use them... Deb 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nature images

Seen quite a few in wikimedia, but did not particularly collected them. How do you like this "Chicken and real big grain" ("partridge and mushroom")? Can you imagine these blockheads in wikimedia refused to recognize the desert as a featured image? P.S. Kinda curious: what have you been doing at my user page? `'Míkka 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah! It looks unreal and completely real at the same time. I probably shouldn't deliberately see everyone's point of view, but I can imagine that. Looks like they were two problems, first the black line, a real technical problem fixable with Photoshop, and second the fact that voters were not briefed about what the image is about and how, and therefore didn't approach it as proof of the wonders of nature as much as something that looks like The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young doing nasty things to Jupiter. Fix those and it should pass, no problem.
I chanced upon your page because of a random click from the ARS talk page. I'm considering joining, it looks like a worthwhile project. If it helps, I was crazy on perfectly legal amphetamines at the time. Short but boring story involving prediagnostic medication tests and suspected ADHD that wasn't there. Better now. --Kizor 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quoting policies....

I responded to you & Tikiwont on my Talk page. (Since this is not how I normally respond to people, I thought this note was appropriate.) -- llywrch 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Breeching

Many thanks for those kind words , though User:PKM had uploaded a lot of the pictures - she's been busy this week & is only getting going on the article now. Johnbod 02:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Time Lapse

Wow... thanks for the message and the link. The visual effect of seeing the changes is quite cool. I am still toying with the idea of writing a script in Perl or something that will parse the entire article history and give hard stats on everything possible... I wonder if something like that already exists...?? Again, thanks for that link... κaτaʟaveno^T_C 15:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mal Reynolds

Sorry about that -- I was tired, working too fast, and really ticked off. I'll try to be more careful next time.--SarekOfVulcan 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AfDs in their final stages -- that one actually did apply here, iirc -- I think they were on their last day before being speedied.--SarekOfVulcan 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Context

Thanks for the little song, but I'm unclear on why you told me about it. Perhaps you could explain? SolidPlaid 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why is on your watchlist? SolidPlaid 03:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by "Kizor sent me here" was I discovered the Gavin.Collins thing by looking at your contribution history. Then I saw that there was an attempt to muzzle G.C by some folks, so I weighed in. SolidPlaid 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think muzzle is a good word. According to the talk page, "Isn't the desired outcome that Gavin.Collins stop making AfD's and tagging articles inaccurately?" If his AfD nominations were not in good faith, like the jackhole who nominated Derek Jeter for deletion he could be stopped during the AfD process. SolidPlaid 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA

As I mentioned before, here's the RFA. Please let me know if there's anything I can do or answer about the process. It's not a huge deal, though sometimes it can be made out to be one. If you're cool with it, just go ahead and edit the page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kizor with your acceptance comment. Good luck. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• nudge* :) kmccoy (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD

No, your tones are very temperate, and you're not berating me for having the nerve to create a new AfD, like a couple of others have. Corvus cornix 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SuccessTech Academy

Howdy. Just noticed you's posed a question to me on a now-archived AfD discussion for the page. You said "Sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning in here. It's not worthy of an article if it doesn't get the attention of more editors in the future?" My comments and Keep votes may seem at odds but my logic was that the article deserves a shot at being born and fleshed out to stand up to the rigors of Wikipedia's notability and encyclopedic requirements, but that if it continued to languish with (at the time) just a handful of editors, that was a tacit signal the subject was NOT notable. Hope that makes sense. Since my initial WP:BOLD it's been clear many more editors are working on it. For the short term I feel this establishes its notability. Ageekgal 02:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Orion 005.png - deletion.

Deleted as requested. No worries. Pedro :  Chat  13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kizor 13:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you get on and transclude the thing hanging around a few threads up...... then you can do it yourself........ :) Pedro :  Chat  13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Working on it... --Kizor 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Collins RfC

You are right. Craw-Daddy made that point too. I removed my intervention: it was not entirely appropriate, indeed. As I already wrote to Craw-Daddy, "Probably diplomacy is not my most developed quality... I looked for a graphic way to show that asking if a person has ever done something is a (not too) implicit way of accusing that person. I hope somebody else will find a more elegant way to put it" Thank you , Goochelaar 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I shall do so (rephrase the reasoning in a more conservative way) or just drop it: Gavin probably would not see the point anyway, and most other editors would see it anyway. Thanks again, and beware of your monkey's projectiles! Goochelaar 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA - not so important???

Hi Kizor, I'm a bit concerned about your lack of attention to your RfA process. Pls take into consideration that people invest a considerable amount of time for giving candidates a vote. In this regard, I think it's a bit undiplomatic that you took the time to participate in an other discussion today, but haven't answered the questions at RfA yet. Just a reminder... Gray62 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not today, yesterday after midnight. I actually responded to your concern about this on the RFA itself, but got an edit conflict with your note about a lack of response, and a new message about this. *embarassed grin* Story of my life. Anyway, I do appreciate the time and effort that goes into a RFA, but this only started the day before yesterday and yesterday I focused my appreciation to a course I'm taking at university that's on my favorite, obscure, hope-to-turn-into-a-career subject and also years above my level and known for its workload. Briefly busy IRL is what I'm trying to say. I could have addressed the questions in the wee hours of the night, but that just answers itself, doesn't it?

I didn't think this delay would be a severe issue, but it's clear enough from the neutral comments that it was. Apologies. --Kizor 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

USS Franklin film

Well, having gotten no response to your question, I went ahead and added the link to USS Franklin (CV-13). We'll see what happens.
—wwoods 17:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV.

I didn't deal with Linkspamvandalbot, but I'll give you a high-five for finding that user. ;P · AndonicO ^Talk 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Give high-five I dealt with it. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilertag userbox

Hello Kizor

I like your spoilertag userbox! Would you consider including it in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia? Akiyama 11:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Rudget _{Contributions} 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me, too. Let me know if I can help you with anything. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and I humbly ask you accept my apology, I asked the question and then somehow forgot to go back and support once I saw your answer. ~*Ashamed*~ I'm so sorry! Also, I've replied to your question on my talk page. Congrats again! Ariel♥Gold 04:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the fray. 1 != 2 06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and thank you for the spam! I have added it to my collection. My talk page is always open if you have any questions. Good luck! Neil ☎ 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! Good luck with the mop and bucket!  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad to see you succeeded! Well done, and happy editing! Lradrama 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bravo and best wishes as a new admin! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, and good luck in the moshpit of sysopping. Yup, even if you just stick your initial in the edit summary box it just shows you took that little bit of extra care... fanx for the fanxspam. LessHeard vanU 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Killer robot

I don't really think a blog is notable. You should look in the news instead. I see an addition for it has already been put up in the Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannon article. Maybe you could add more information there and find another source. Something like that should be in other sources like the Associated Press. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New admin school

Hey there Kizor, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's very handy! Best wishes, I'm glad you've joined the less than almighty cabal! Now Get to work ! Pedro :  Chat  14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BREAKGLASS

Hi,

I was reading the Signpost and came accross your recent sysoping. Congratulations! I saw on your RfA your idea to start an 'in case of emergency...' essay. That's a great idea! I thought you might like to be aware of WP:DM (of which I am an active member); us guys there would be happy to collaborate with you on it. Just a thought. Cheers, Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Here is a T-shirt that all admins need! :) Acalamari 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on your RfA - I'm delighted for you! Rray 00:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clan (Warriors)

Probably not, there was a fairly strong consensus to delete, SPAs aside. Generally, when I say "established editors" I mean "everyone who isn't a SPA or isn't being accused of sockpuppetry". --Coredesat 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, congratulations on your RFA, by the way. :) --Coredesat 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Motivated largely - and one can't put much trust into estimates of motivations from online text, though some users involved are open in this - by varying amounts of dislike/hatred for such articles. Oh well, that's omnipresent in fiction AfDs these days. If making the existence of an additional keep argument clearer would've changed nothing, then there's no reason to pursue the matter further :(. (Mind, if it had, I don't know what I'd have done next - but my improvisation has, on a few occasions, done some fairly interesting things to process in the name of the good of the encyclopedia. :P) Oh, and thanks. I hope to wear the mop with pride. --Kizor 05:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:)

You're most welcome! I'm glad you made it! You'll be a great addition to the Wikipedia Admins! If you need anything, drop me a messege on mah' talk page! Good Luck! L337p4wn 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice

Kizor, discussion at WP:ANI about you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended in not notifying you here. I replied (with notification) on my talk page and neglected to do so here as well. I think the discussion at ANI pretty much sums up what I think of the situation. While not a personal attack, your comments on my talkpage are inappropriate and it would be helpful if you'd tone it down some.  :-) /Blaxthos 06:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

None taken. And looking at the link, that's pretty much what I'm saying there. --Kizor 06:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being open minded. I didn't mention it on ANI to spare any additional embarassment, but I notice that you at one time had USER:Kizor/Sore Thumbs in your userspace. A while back we had a pretty heated AFD in which Sore Thumbs was deleted (and has been CSD'd several times since then). I was worried there might have been some residual tension in play... I've been fairly diligent (sp?) in nominating non-notable webcomics and other forms of cruft, which I'm sure has pissed off a good number of the comics people.  :-( /Blaxthos 07:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And the same to you, you probably were more than I would've. And no, there wasn't (though yes, it has) - I ran into the author of that article lamenting the loss of his work in a forum, so I requested userfication and transferred it to comixpedia. I checked the local inbox just now and indeed found a thank-you note with the title "Re: Regarding: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH".
So - we good? --Kizor 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course -- It's never personal. I was more concerned with the appropriateness of the tone. I'm sure it was all in good faith, but adminship does not mean you're qualified or empowered to be "disapoointed" in my "behaviour" over an AFD discussion. I'm sorry that my interpretation of appropriate content differs from yours, but I believe that AFD usually works things out appropriately. Just don't go scolding editors who take the time to comment, dad.  ;-) Congrats and good luck with the mop or broom or whatever they call it now.  :) /Blaxthos 07:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I never thought it did. It's a decision of the community that, judging from my past actions, I can be trusted to handle some of the more powerful actions without blowing anything of consequence up. Infallibility is for those with Bureaucrat status. I'll have to note on ANI that it was indeed overboard since it came across as only the latter half of "why I took it how I took it". --Kizor 07:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent issue

I meant nothing personal by that, and should have inserted the comment without indenting. Sorry. SolidPlaid 05:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt ...

1. ... read the policy (again), which I will do.
2. ... send congratulations, which I am doing now.

-) 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to sign above. I ended up creating sub-pages for my Wikipedia portfolio and deleted articles, and creating a huge watchlist, to keep track of all the important stuff. Bearian 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA

While reading someone else's user talk page, I saw your message about not reaching 42 votes. I am willing to help. Your 2 friends can also help. All 3 of us should not help or you will reach 43. Just add the votes to the discussion (talk) page of the RFA. You shouldn't add it to the RFA because it has a box saying it's over. With the 2 votes in the RFA discussion page, you will have 42 votes (even though only 40 were counted by the referee. Congolese 04:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OneOverZeroJunior.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:OneOverZeroJunior.gif. 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 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD template

No trouble. When cruising the day's discussions, I noticed the blue box kept going. Not the first time, and probably won't be the last. When you say you copy/pasted, {{subst:afd-top}} would save you a bunch of copy/paste. Now that I think about it, the {{afd-bottom}} should have beed subst'd too; just now fixed it.Neier 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights DRV

Not sure if you're already aware of it, but if not, please note that a DRV has been opened for the Star Wars article. I'm not the DRV nominator (for lack of a better word), but as far as I can tell it looks like you weren't notified, so I thought I'd better give a heads up. Cheers! — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just attempted to close this. I don't agree with this close, but it is not appropriate to debate it now. Besides, I'm now sure it was a good faith close even though I said otherwise previously. Pilotbob 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Barn star

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		To Kizor for attempting good faith discussion even though we don't agree on many things Pilotbob 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What a nice pik-a-nik it was

Your set-up of the argument-deflating picnic was a splendid idea, and I meant to come over and commend you on its implementation. It was pretty darn effective in accomplishing its task. That is the sort of effort I like to see in admins. Thanks for stepping in and doing a great job! :)
On another note, where can I get one of those nifty Creep Eliminator barnstars? I've killed off at least 4 sockpuppets and learned very steeply about the ArbCom enforcement process by helping a notice along. Does that do the trick? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the Barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar. I appreciate it, and don't worry. :-) It is fine the way it is. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)