User talk:Kizor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am not infallible. Regardless of any policies to the contrary, feel free to revert any admin actions I have performed if you believe them to be mistaken or unwise.
This editor spends substantial portions of his time without having a #¤%& grip.
A natural tendency to not have a #¤%& grip was worsened by an unrepetible real-life event, and getting a #¤%& grip again without one is proving arduous. He will make a honest attempt to reply promptly to messages, and give special priority to admining matters to honor the trust of the community and what not. Results may vary. In all cases poking the editor will speed the process.
This editor likes seeing people talk about matters that interest him. Feel free to take part in the discussions on this page unless specifically asked not to.
This page contains too many pastel-colored boxes.
The number of boxes should be reduced until it is no more than two.


Archive: 2003-2005 Archive: 2006 Archive: 2007

Contents

[edit] Forces of Corruption

Your welcome. I try to improve expansion packs from time to time, so I'll keep an eye on this one. Hope yoor doing okay; take a break if you need one. Clyde (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I'll be fine. While this spoiler mess is going on I may cause temporary damage to my keyboard or even have a suitably theatralic minor breakdown or two, but I'll be fine. I'm quite ridiculously stubborn, you know. --Kizor 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I saw that debate, took one look, and said not gonna bother. Big bru ha ha though eh?--Clyde (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination))

My take is that "unencyclopedic" means "the kind of stuff we have agreed (or think that) doesn't belong in Wikipedia". The general view of this has changed and is still changing, IMO too far and too fast sometimes. But have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LC 7893 jet for some of the idiocies that people, apparently in good faith, create as Wikipedia articles. Part of the problem is that WP:NOR is being interpreted differently and more strictly. Originally, this was basically a rule against using Wikipedia to publish fringe-theory physics. By now, putting facts from disparate sources together (all admitted facts) and drawing a plausible but not inevitable conclusion is OR unless a source can be pointed to for the conclusion. That is the biggest change that affects many of the list pages, their assembly is now considered OR under the new, expanded definition.

Mind you, I think that many of the changes are good ones -- Wikipedia used to include lots of junk that couldn't be gotten rid of provided that it was popular with a critical mass of supporters who would turn out for a VfD/AfD. I do think the project is being taken more seriously now, and i do think that is a good thing. While we aren't a paper encyclopedia and don't have the space limits that paper imposes (although we are short of servers and bandwidth again, not enough cash) we should IMO take ourselves with more or less the same kind of seriousness that more traditional encyclopedias do.

You said "I can see that there was no other option, even a "relist to generate further discussion" would've caught flak" I don't mind catching flak -- I caught plenty on the Userbox wars (i was opposed to the mass deletions of early 2006), User Blue ribbon (I opposed his banning), several deletions under the newly expanded and aggressive WP:BLP policy (I opposed them), the start of the Great Spoiler Purge (I reverted many of the early removals of spoiler tags) and various other occasions. (Note that I lost all the above arguments.) But re-listing is for when there has been too little comment, not too much, and when there is some reasonable hope that re-listing will change the outcome. I doubt that there was any in this case.

You say "I'm confident a new version can be hammered out at a wikiproject, which are designed for cooperation, instead of an AfD, which are designed for being at loggerheads" You may well be right. I simply want some assurance that the project actually exists and has a commitment to work on fixing the problems here (or perceived problems) before i undelete and move to project space. Mind you i have seen cooperative AfDs -- indeed sometimes AfD seems like the best cleanup tool available. But not when the issue is whether a type of article belongs at all, only when people are pretty much agreed on what is needed in advance, and an AfD spurs them to actually do it.

I do try to stay polite, whatever the circs. I'm glad I manged it in this case. Thanks for your comments. DES (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over List of gory death scenes

Thanks for your invitation to help with the discussion over what to do with this article, but I'm afraid I won't be able to take part - I'm busy with too many other issues at the moment. All the same, I hope it goes well, and that the disputes over the article can be resolved. Terraxos 23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "fire education"

You know, I saw that comment about the "burining girl" over on VP as I was scrolling down, and I felt compelled to tell you how disturbingly funny it was. If I can find a flaming barnstar, you certainly deserve it! MSJapan 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I aim to please. To please and horrify. And there are few greater pleasures than pulling off an outrageous stunt for a perfectly valid reason. *grin* Re barnstar: Since you asked, I'm sure there is one - especially as an all-purpose one seems to have been introduced - but I'd rather at least delay it until I've written that actual article. If a Surreal Barnstar seems more appropriate, please delay that until I've brought Finnish profanity to at least "B" - status. I like to feel that I've earned them. :P --Kizor 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paavo Nurmi and Vasa

Hi, i saw you had started the debate about the paavo nurmi statue at the vasa wreck. I've added in the factoid as you had originally suggested. But it has been a bit of an edit debate in the article by the editors keen on the article without any outside views. So I'd ask you to comment on that talk page about why you felt and feel it should be part of the article (as i have already done). Gillis 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBFan

Yes, I have seen some of the recent kerfuffle CBFan's been involved with, as some of it's on my watchlist. If he doesn't come back from his block having rethought his approach to things, I'd suggest either a Wikiquette alert (an informal, gentler way of doing things, which seems very suitable for addressing incivility) or, if really thought necessary, an RfC. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. RfCs tend to kick up an awful lot of dust for very few results - and in this particular case, there's no complicated issue to merit calling for a multitude of perspectives - but a Wikiquette alert looks like it could be tailor-made for the occasion. That said, I spoke in Kingdom's favor on AN/I because of what CBFan has put him through, which CBFan saw and has accused me of lying and deliberately making him look bad three times and counting. Could you stay back as a relatively uninvolved party and make an alert if and when you consider it appropriate? (His first e-mail actually quoted and attacked your text, but apparently as a case of mistaken identity.) --Kizor 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversation opener

Apologies for not being there to help. It was for the same reason that was behind my feeble rudimentary appeal on the AfD when a full-fledged one could've saved this trouble: sleep, that first of human fallacies.
Do you need ("need", not "can use" in the circumstances, alas) a hand with the article? --Kizor 08:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it may get speedied again and have to go to WP:DRV. It depends on the interpretation of CSD #4. This is one of the pitfalls of the deletion process, that the early votes remain static although the article can change dramatically from the beginning of the process to the end. Captain Zyrain 08:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's what you do: Vote to overturn the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Active#Conversation_opener. Captain Zyrain 09:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list of films

I put the lists in my userpages because they are useful. I don't really intend to do much with them in the way of editing. If you want to edit them go ahead. Jooler 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master of Orion

Hi, I'm glad you liked my update of the Master of Orion article. I tend to be conservative in the use of images because: they make pages load more slowly; one can only use fairly small images in articles and its often hard to see the relevant details in thumbnails; most images need quite a lot of explanatory text. In the case of Master of Orion the article is now quite long, and I didn't want to make it longer unless I could see clear benefits to the reader. After some thought I concluded that: the galaxy map ("main screen") with management controls for a planet and the combat screen (with stacks) would do the most to give readers a good idea of what it feels like to play the game; the images you mentioned ("new tech discovered"; ship design, which would need lot of explanatory text; plant information, which some commentators regard as superfluous) did not do enough to justify the costs to the reader. Of course YMMV :-)Philcha 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You make good points, in fact I'd call them "salient" but I'm not entirely sure what that means. ;-) I've been thoroughly spoiled regarding bandwidth by the local campus network - suffice it to say that I don't know what kind of top speed I could get from this thing - so are the loading times a significant issue? Luckily, in this case the low resolution of the images keeps the file sizes small (15 KB at the most) and the thumbnails fully legible, migitating many of the potential problems. The explanatory text and the need for benefiting the reader, those I'll grant you.

You'll have noticed that I stuck the images back. It was an emergency measure as I'd intended to discuss them with you first, but time ran out before your reply came. Now that we have the time to reflect - yeah, the research picture is horrid. I likely aimed to illustrate the distinct features of the game, but that image only conveys the fact that MoO has technological advancements. As does every other 4X, near as makes no difference. (Yes, us non-native English speakers sometimes tend to use a mishmash of idioms and expressions that we've picked up from different places. Stylistic consistency is for fancies. Anyway.) There's likely no way to present the fact in pictures. In its place, I could put one or two fine diplomacy images that I have laying around - "your attack was unprovoked" and "continue expanding and you'll face our wrath" are novel even today! I'm ambivalent about the planet picture. It worked somewhat better when the graphics section was integrated with another, now-deleted article about how things that try to work with what they have tend to keep better than things that try to look as real as possible. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit, but its elaborate graphics does have a good contrast with the other screens, which tend towards the spartan, showing that the game is built to be functional but is still decorated. (Granted, using any Terran planet than Meklon would've been a better move.) We should definitely have a picture about ship design. That's one of the biggest parts of the entire game and certainly the most memorable, plus another feature rare to this day. It's not necessary to describe the process in detail in the thumbnail, just add the image to where ship design is covered to demonstrate the process and its complexity. --Kizor 02:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Added text about 4 hull sizes and types of ship components.
Removed "new tech discovered" image as it tells the reader nothing. The problem with tech is that we really need 2 images: resource allocation (sliders) and the menu in which player chooses which tech to research next. IMO 2 images is 1 too many for 1 subject, so I'd rather stick with the text explanation.
I'd love it if someone could provide either of 2 diplomacy images: "continue expanding and you'll face our wrath" makes the point that AIs get seriously nervous / jealous; "how could we refuse those who gave us ..." makes the point that AI players remember past dealings (better IMO than in other 4X games I've played, including MOO2). IMO one of MOO's strengths is how well it makes the AI players seem like real people.
BTW I've also done a major edit on Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares and would welcome your comments.Philcha 11:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Lair

Done, see User:Kizor\Evil lair. Garion96 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Regarding "notability purges", I'm actually on your side. I think articles should be kept if they're high quality and notable within their series or the general genre, regardless of whether or not X reliable source has covered it. However, a few weeks ago it was just decided that numerous high quality articles would be deleted for lack of notability, including an important and relevant one I was proud of, Ridley (Metroid). Therefore I decided if someone was going on a purge, I might as well help them out. I personally do not want to see any of the articles I nominated go (with the exception of Kracko and possible exception of Dyna Blade (Kirby), both of which seem rather crufty) but I guess we should be thorough. Since you're an admin I think you can help me out here. I'd be happy to stop the deletions, except I don't really know how-do I just say "We're putting this discussion on hold", or is there some template? I also created this discussion a few days ago to explain that policies regarding WP:N weren't being consistently followed, but I came off as using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hopefully you can help me out with some of these "notability purges", as many of the articles that were deleted and that I've nominated for deletion were and are good quality and notable. Thanks for being so kind! ShadowUltra 05:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't intend on nominating any more. Those were the only ones I felt should be reviewed. But yeah, I'll hold off if I see any more. ShadowUltra 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Halloween!

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving a comment/response on the Xenofiction AfD page. Thanks for the reminder. RLetson 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:majoredit

I have never seen this template used to slow or stop an AfD until now - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenofiction. I think that you may be getting too involved in the debate, as this template may be interpreted as a means of slowing down the AfD process in order to obtain a specific result which you perceive to be the 'right' one. Remember, a deleted article may be restarted at any time. I suggest that you userfy it and reintroduce the article when you obtained the necessary primary and secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of Xenofiction. --Gavin Collins 09:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zap

If it's done the rounds before, just say that and zap it Jimfbleak 07:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

a== A Wikipedia meetup in Helsinki? ==

Hello! Are you interested in a meetup for contributors of the English language Wikipedia in Finland? If so, please comment at Wikipedia:Meetup/Helsinki (and, of course, invite other Wikipedians you know who might be interested). Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving!

Photograph of pumpkin pie.
Photograph of pumpkin pie.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from Jay32183

UMass Amherst is great. I'm not too familiar with the philosophy department. If you have any questions about the Geoscience department, I'm your man though. Jay32183 (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example creep

D'oh! So I read the wrong thing into it. I guess I don't deserve it. based solel;y on my misinterpretation. I do try to prevent bloat, though. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Angry Video Game Nerd in a Swedish magazine

I didn't read the magazine myself as I don't buy magazines due to the information availability on the internet. But it is highly plausible that the article you shown me is from that magazine. It was a few month ago to say the least that I saw the magazine. The Angry Video Game Nerd was featured on the cover of this independent professional gaming magazine sold primarily in video game stores but can most likely be found in magazine specialized stores as well. The articles dialogue is about who the Angry Video Game Nerd is, how he became as popular as he is, what his preferences of games good as well as the worst are. I would say it would serve as a good reference for such a section. If you need help, I can translate it for you. Lord Metroid (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah man, if you could give me a copy, it'd be great.

I understand what you did, and how your doing what you're supposed to do.

No big deal man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I-am-durden (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Video Game Nerd and 148.201.1.111

I've seen you say a few things on his talk page. But at this point, I'm getting tired of this. 148.201.1.111, or has he calls himself, "JamalTompson" is really starting to get on my nerves on the AVGN subject. Would you please step in and get him to be quiet, if he doesn't like the article, that's fine. But he has no right to keep this up. It's been an almost unanimous agreement to keep the article, so I don't think we need to hear anything else about the matter of deletion.

Thanks,

--Mooshykris (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

The list can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. As most ips will usually change, we don't block them indefinitely. The template for indef is {{uw-block3}} or {{uw-voablock}} or Category:User block templates has a more comprehensive list. Woodym555 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Sorry to post a second time, but I didn't know if you would be notified if I edited the other one or not.

The guy I mentioned about the AVGN article is still keeping it up, his most recent post being this:

Jamal Thompson: You two are assuming a close-minded position because you feel that your idol is being treatened. When actually, what I try to do is just the right thing. Im not a vandal, the admin who I've been talking to doesn't think I am, that's why he allowed me to edit pages once again in the first place.

Anyway, as far as im concerned. I'm just going to suggest deletion for this entry and use your fanboyism as evidence of the point I'm trying to make. Cheers

This really needs to come to an end, and to mention, he's apparently online around now. So whenever you can take care of it, hurry.

I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, it's just I think this is slowly getting out of hand, and I can picture bigger problems on the way if this keeps up.

--Mooshykris (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's cool, man. I try to stay chill. Most people on the internet are jackasses now, and Im sick of all the crap. No one thinks about the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I-am-durden (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now he's going around posting deletion proposals on more then just the AVGN article. This time on Chris Crocker's Page! If this keeps up, his "trying to help" will drag all internet phenomena into the debate. He just won't let it go! This has to stop! --Mooshykris (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spellcross

Hi,

I hope this is the right way to communicate with you, I am not used to use wikipedia expect reading the articles. The Spellcross was actually the only article in English wiki I edited and two in Czech.

Anyway, as for your question I don't have any great ideas to improve the article right now... hmmm... English is not my native language, were my changes ok as far as the English grammar is concerned?

I would like to note that the "joined missions" difference is just only a thing I read on some Czech forum, I could not verify it myself {have no strength/time to play each version of the game after the other to remember it exactly), I verified the strategic maps - new pictures, tutorial, three difficulty settings and some changes to mission design thought. I am not completely sure how the 2 vs 3 difficulty settings compare to each other + with these changes to mission design I don't dare to confirm the rumors that the Czech version is more difficult in general.

I have link to interview with Cauldron (27. 7. 2005), but it is in Czech so guess I can't add it to EN wiki {http://www.doupe.cz/h/Special/Ar.asp?ARI=111373&CAI=2199&EXPS=%22CAULDRON%2A%22} maybe you are interested so I will translate to you the question about S2:

"Q:Neuvažujete o pokračování Spellcrossu? Spousta fanoušků by jej uvítala. {Aren't you considering a sequel of Spellcross? Many fans would welcome it.)

A:Spellcross je naše srdcová záležitost a prakticky každý týden (ano, i teď, po bezmála osmi letech od vydání) dostáváme pozitivní ohlasy. Určitě, až dozraje správná doba, pokračování uděláme. A vůbec to nemusí být až tak daleko. (Spellcross is a think of our heart and virtually every week (yes, even now, after nearly eight years after release) we are receiving positive feedback. Certainly, when the time comes, we will make the sequel. And it might not be that far away.)"

I read somewhere later thought, that the idea of making the sequel was again considered but rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottodostal (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the mistakes in that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Saad (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closure

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm not v. experienced in AfD matters (having said as much in my very recent RfA) and so please excuse me if I decline your request: I don't think this is the one for me to start my AfD closing career with! Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: I think I'm going to decline to close it, too, though for different reasons. I'm not so sure that it been too short between the last AfD as the length of time is not clearly defined. I don't close enough AfDs to be aware of what de facto time limit is, either. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern on the amount of time in-between the AfDs, but it can be justified with common sense.

The previous AfD was started more than a month before the current one, and I do not recall reading a policy stating that there should be a difference between the time it ended and the time it started.

Also, there has been over a month since the time it was started, and about three weeks since it has ended, yet there has been little to no improvements, as already mentioned on the current AfD.

This should probably justify the second nomination. As far as I know, morale and amount of editors are not issues in regards of when an article can be renominated. IAmSasori (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the closing admin of the previous AfD Haemo has stated that he "would strongly suggest that users work on this aspect, and pronto, because articles cannot persist indefinitely on such a basis." I'm sure that nearly a month is more time than "pronto," suggesting the renomination should remain open. IAmSasori (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Qfg2 frag bug.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Qfg2 frag bug.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 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Video Game Nerd

I'll try to work your reference into the article tonight. I might perhaps write a short "International" section under the popularity section. Do you have any other references to AVGN being mentioned outside the U.S.? If so, I will integrate them. I have all the references on the AVGN website. Have a great day. - DevinCook 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Firefly

Recently you contibuted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. There is now an ongoing discussion stemming from that AfD here if you wish to contribute. [[Guest9999 15:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Who's 4chan?

Hi, saw your message. Who the heck is 4chan? It looks like a bunch of people tried to vandalize my page all at the same time.

Anyway, I haven't been active for a week - except for posting on a "Political views of Ron Paul" talk page that I thought it was a very slanted article and needed balance.

So, who knows? Maybe the Ron Paul stormtroopers are to blame? I've always thought long-winded internet libertarians were capable of anything.

Anyway, yes. If it's no strain on resources, you can just make my userpage indefinitely protected, if you want. Means nobody has to monitor it. And it seems silly that user pages are UNprotected by default anyway, doesn't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fun place. I'd actually be interested in going there. I've got no clue why they'd be gpoing after me, unless, like I said, it was a Ron Paul thing. Then again, I have no clue why groups of people would join together to vandalize Wikipedia. Like, they obviously aren't having a contest. Oh well. I still think userpages should be permanently semi-protected as a matter of course.... If you don't like that, then maybe just prtect it for a month or something. I dunno. I'm not even here much now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Another admin requested that I nominate them for AFD instead. I am confused now, cuz your comment seemed like a threat. I don't like threats. "I am a brash new admin" - sounds a bit like a threat, maybe since you are a "new" admin you should start to be more polite to people that are taking another admins suggestions. Ejfetters 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok understand the issue of nom. so many. I am going to remove the AFD that I was working on earlier, and condense them down to smaller groups and not all at once. I already listed one of minor characters from Enterprise, and then after that will continue that way. Ejfetters 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Exploding head

An article that you have been involved in editing, Exploding head, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding head. Thank you.

I think I may have overridden your rm. of a post to my talk page, in the process of responding to it and resolving an edit conflict in the process. If your intent was to delete the whole thread, feel free to do so again (incl. my response). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

You're the only admin here I know, so I'd like to get your opinion the recent edits to the article about Dice control. According to User:GusChiggins21's latest edit, he wants to have an edit war. You can review the discussion on the talk page there too if you have time. Rather than get into an edit war, I though I'd get another editor's opinion. My feeling is that this user is being intentionally disruptive at this point, but I could be wrong. Would appreciate any feedback or help you could provide. Rray 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creeps

I am sorry for failing to follow up on the majoredit tag on the creep AfD. Another !keep on the basis of the concept's significance in its field rather than one game's peculiarity could have swayed the outcome. --Kizor (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am no wikipedia expert but isn't there some way to appeal the decision? I hate how i can't comment any further on the article for deletion page either... [1] The guy below be says two incorrect statements:

People are "delete" crazy to rid wikipedia of unencyclopedic content that has latched itself onto the encyclopedia like a leech.

The very definition of the word encyclopedic is comprehensive. [2] So maybe i don't understand how it is "uncomprehensive" to have more information.

With regard to this article, there would have to be many references to justify its notability, otherwise its notability extends just to Warcraft and the games that have copied its use of Creeps.

I think i made a case that the concept of creeps are used in many RTS games now. As the article did refer to several other games.

Maybe i just don't understand the deletion "policy", i understand you can't have articles about your pet cat or whatever, but what is the big deal here? i think wikipedia is better off with the creeps article... it's not like its a paper encyclopedia. The more information the better, because right now that information is gone. okay done ranting... :) Spazm 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biological issues in Jurassic Park

I am on holiday for the next few weeks. While I'm here, I have access to a faster internet connection then my usual much-hated dial-up. This means I can help with the referancing on biological issues in Jurassic Park. T.Neo (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Im here to help! T.Neo (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You dont mind adding the referance thingy to the article do you? I am a bit new with stuff like that. Then I can do the rest of the editing by drawing on what I have in the book. T.Neo (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind. Its fine. I got it right in the end. T.Neo (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Research

Hi Kizor,

I sent you an e-mail yesterday about participating in an interview for my undergraduate thesis, and I just wanted to make sure you got it. I'd love it if you'd be able to participate!

Jkomoros (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game guides

The last time I can recall using that was in reference to a game article in which the location of power ups was specifically listed, and such things as what power ups do, where they are, and tricks to get them was 95% of the article. I stand by that assessment of the article as game guide. ThuranX (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semantics

I understand your concern, but I don't agree about the rate of PRODding articles. You say that PRODding articles quickly doesn't allow other editors the chance to determine if the content can be fixed, but all someone has to do is remove the PROD and there is no deadline anymore. Unfortunately, this very rarely (if ever) leads to the improvement of the article with out-of-universe information, at least in my experience. I do like to work with other projects in hopes they can control their own content. I have left a couple of messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 regarding the excessive articles that fall under that project, rather than a mass-PROD or mass-AFD approach. (I may have PRODded a few, but not very many).

Regarding the application of the "game guide" label, you'll notice on the article in question, Descent Freespace Terran fighters, that my main issue in the PROD was notability, and that I listed game guide content as a secondary concern. I stand by that statement, as the deleted article had lists of craft specifications (Craft: Apollo, Manufacturer: Han-Ronald Corporation, Class: Superiority, Gun Control: 4 2x2, etc.) that would only be useful to players of the game. That is absolutely game guide content. Pagrashtak 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiinfo

Thanks for the comment - however, I didn't miss that - I just didn't agree with it, the subject doesn't merit an individual article - maybe a line or two in another article about wiki development or the history of wikipedia, but that's it. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Western Air Temple

The page is still protected from editing and is locked into a version with obvious mistakes. —UTSRelativity (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It took me for a moment to notice, but I fixed that after you started typing the message. :P Thanks for writing that, though, if I hadn't picked it up it might have taken a while. Have at it. --Kizor (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AVGN Talkpage

Is there a way to have the talkpage on the new Angry Video Game Nerd article unprotected? --Mooshykris (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It turned out to be on a list of automatically prohibited pages from last March. Since the situation then is no longer applicable and the protection was disrupting legitimate editing, I removed it. --Kizor (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vasa (ship) at FAC

Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.

Peter Isotalo 14:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UaW

Can you at least make your paragraph sound nicer plz

You made it sound like UaW is a rip-off of everything(which is kinda true, I admit) but we're trying to sell the game here

don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.120.34 (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Closing request

Sorry, I've never closed an AfD. I agree that the nominations are very close, but I imagine the right outcome will come from the new AfD debate. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I found some more experienced admins to look into that particular user (the perpetual AfD nominator). User:FT2 left a rather lengthy post on User talk:Pilotbob. I encourage you to take a look. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your Image uploads

If you can do this, go ahead. Fangz of Blood 19:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joyeux Noël

The composer of my favorite Christmas carol.
The composer of my favorite Christmas carol.

I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Harry Potter newspapers and magazines

An article that you have been involved in editing, Harry Potter newspapers and magazines, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding head

Thanks for your note. It's useful to get informative feedback, and I will certainly bear it in mind. The article as written came across as a personal theory with some refs attached to try to justify it. I think it could work if re-thought. The trick is to start with the info in reliable sources, use only that material, and reference very tightly, so it is clear that everything is taken from a secondary source rather than OR. Good luck! Tyrenius (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Kizor. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex

Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

  1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
  2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
  3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
  4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
  5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 05:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: AVGN and other nonsense

Hey there.

I absoutely agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm still figuring out what is appropriate for AfD, CSD and whatnot and I'm learning to leave my New Pages Patrol mode behind when I'm evaluating established articles, and do a more thorough job of researching. Now that I'm finally home from school (my trip took over a week, family in the hospital - long story), I can actually concentrate more on Wikipedia skills. I just remember articles on James Rolfe and AVGN being deleted several times through both CSD and AfD when I contributed annonymously over the past few months, and I went into "NP Patrol Policy Mode" and thought CSD: Repost, but better take it to AfD just in case. Well, now I know not to do that (or at least without some more through research with other editors and utilization of the talk page.

Anywho, remember that I'm fairly new, and with more experience I'm sure that I'll be more keen in time to what to submit for deletion, and what not to. Rest assured that I don't beleive that AfD is trivial, and I will assume better faith next time on the behalf of the article's author.

Cheers, Mr Senseless (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:On the nature of Wikipedia

I will not be mass-AFDing articles as I feel more can be achieved by discussing possible changes to the current policy related to the articles. I also have doubts that any AFD attempt would succeed due to the nature of the mechanism, involved. However, I do still believe that a lot of articles, especially science fiction and television programme-related, would be better off in specialist Wikis than this one But, as I said, I will be taking a look at how policy may be able to be improved rather than nominating anything for deletion (barring anything I would have nominated anyway, which isn't much) at this time. Regards Whitstable (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My issue with specialist Wikis is where does it end? One of the great things about WP is its comprehensiveness. Will we hive off other wikis? Religion-wiki, Politics-wiki etc.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The deletionist rampage

It may be acceptable because it is policy, however please read Wikipedia:Gaming the system which suggests using policies and guidelines in order to gain the upper hand and twhart others on wikipedia. Blueanode (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello =

Congratulations on your adminship. I know we aren't going to agree on a lot of things, but thanks for the story!! Pilotbob (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arrkelaan.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Arrkelaan.png. 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 (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionism

Oh so its okay that the other users can go around and nominate articles for that reason? but I can't, I actually read WP:FICT and I now agree with the in-universe style and notability guidelines, I have not retired and infact I plan to stay for a long time. Blueanode (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain, after a good reading of policy I believe that Wikipedia is being clogged up by articles on fictional subjects which have no real notability or importance in the real world, they are written all in universe style and no reliable sources on these articles exsist, so they are not needed here on wikipedia and if someone actually wants to come and look these up they can go to the subjects wikia wiki's. However this is an encyclopedia for real stuff, important stuff, and relevant stuff. Blueanode (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will be willing to listen, but please do not go into a rant. Blueanode (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, please go ahead. Blueanode (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have never considered that, I have seen these wiki's before and the articles are there, but they are very poorly written with POV, and often these wiki's will have about 10 editors each. Blueanode (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the encouragement. By the way, if you would like to officially signify interest in the Wikicommunity project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have mail

Please check your email. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's encyclopedic...

...is perhaps one of the most difficult questions that you can ask on Wikipedia, and it's mostly a sociologic rather than factual question. I should perhaps say that my level of involvement has very much decreased in the past one or two years, so my views may be inaccurate.

Why is it a sociologic question? Because the answer to the encyclopedicness question depends on who is asked. There are projects, such as traditional encyclopedias, where editorial boards and professional staff define what's going in and what's not. There are others, like the failed Nupedia and perhaps Citizendium, where hierarchical structures ensure that the qualification of editors is such that certain standards are upheld when it comes to inclusivity, as well as quality, questions. And there's Wikipedia, where the question of encyclopedicness has never been adequately defined, but rather left to popular opinion.

Wikipedia is a natural magnet for geekoid personalities with their likes and dislikes, and that has led to an enormous imbalance in favor of geekish interests. Computers, gadgets, video games, comics, hacks, sci-fi, you name it. You think that's not overly encyclopedic? So do many others, but it's incredibly hard to challenge that focus. Most everybody tends to be proud of their own achievements rather than those of the project as a whole. The result is that, as far as I know, there has never been a stated goal of universal quality standards or limitations of coverage. In fact, the question seems to be actively avoided by a majority of users, as well as by those who are generally in charge of the whole project. Rather, one tends to rely on precedence (e.g. that which is linked from WP:NOT), but all of it seems to rest on tradition (and on who shouts the loudest), rather than clear-cut definitions.

The solution? I just don't know. Perhaps Citizendium, if it manages to get off the ground. I would be interested to learn what others are thinking about this.

Cheers, Kosebamse (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with esoteric stuff. I am always amused to read of entries which talk of them 'cluttering up' wikipedia. I mean they are essentially invisible unless one goes looking for them - its not as if someone accidentally types 'Stewie Griffin' when they mean 'Stewart Granger' or whatever....Also, a huge amount of pop culutre has been reffed in books which are esoteric in nature and not found in your suburban bookshop. WP has the opportunity to take depth of knowledge of all things up a notch and this sort of deletionism is attacking that. And why the cutoff at the 20th century? I mean, mythology is merely pop culture of 2000 years ago....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, while I'm busy on my excuse-of-the-month, an essay on the ethical impact of combat robots, yes really, my own participation may be intermittent, but everyone should feel free to join this discussion here if the fancy takes you. --Kizor 17:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just for context, the disussion started with this question. Kosebamse (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:HOMM V external links

Which link are you talking about?. Were you talking about this link and think link?. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Drizzt_Do'Urden#Removal_of_in_universe_tag

If you have time to weigh in regarding the tags I removed from this article, I'd appreciate it. I know you're familiar with some of the issues related to this type of subject matter, and with Gavin Collins. Thanks. Rray (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Would you mind giving a hand to a less experienced user?

Hi Kizor, thanks for the heads up. I left User:David Latapie and I'll be awaiting a response. I hope this hasn't put him off too much. And thanks for that intriguing video! Spellcast (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] on rfc comment move

Kizor, just fyi, no problem with the move on my end.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Reputation

I saw that you were looking for evidence of reputation damage. I don't know how reflective Sheldon is, but here's a few examples ... they are at least worth a giggle.

Kww (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Two can play at that game, however, so here's a Partially Clips for your amusement. --Kizor 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I note that the particular example used by Sheldon is that the Optimus Prime article is larger than the George Washington article, which it considers damning evidence without explaining why. A cursory investigation shows that this may be because the Washington article links to subarticles George Washington's early life, George Washington in the French and Indian War, George Washington between the wars, George Washington in the American Revolution, Presidency of George Washington, George Washington's legacy, Cultural depictions of George Washington, George Washington and slavery and George Washington and religion. It somewhat less conspicuously leads to Military career of George Washington and his nickname Town Destroyer. This leads me to conclude that the author of Sheldon is a total jackass and that, while in the name of honesty this need not invalidate his points, his concern for honesty and fairness in presentation of the issue counts for dick. I hope that you agree. Thanks. --Kizor 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your criticisms have merit ... I just provided them as examples. As to whether he's a total jackass, he's probably a bit jaded. He was the target of a brief conflict over web-comic notability.Kww (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
True, as I mentioned in not so many words the issues are not settled by the state of this representative. As to whether he is, his position is more understandable if was involved in what turned out to be called the Great Webcomics Purge, what seemed like an isolated incident demonstrating the need of working with others but may have been the forerunner to the current hulabaloo, but it is still my personal convinction that someone who acts like one is one. Particularily online, where the barrier between thoughts and their expression is mercifully higher.
This is quite impressive as topic drifts go, though. We can return to Wikipedia's credibility, if you wish, once I finish that expletive'd text on combat robots. --Kizor 15:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit of St. Louis edit

THANKS for your work on the Spirit article. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Raymondwinn (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erfworld

I originally removed the notes from the table so that they would be far easier to expand upon, and when what each and every class and discipline is explained (Thinkamancy is just about there, if it isn't alrady), the table would not be difficult to navigate. (Justyn (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Codex of Ultimate Wisdom

Kizor, thanks for your kind words on my Talk page. I'm glad you read my thinking on the subject. It won't make much difference, I guess, but that's how these things go. I'm not attached to that article in particular, you understand, but I think there's merit in it, merit that will be lost once it has been deleted.

I think the attitude behind the current sweep of AfD's is poisonous, and it's one of many reasons I believe increasingly that there's no real point to working on the Wiki at all. It is so easy to see articles that truly have no merit and actually violate the guidelines for inclusion; the endless reliance on WP:NOT to slash and burn is purely manipulative, a selective attempt to apply 19th-century standards to a 21st-century project and to shut doors that let the air in. Every editor who learned the ropes on an article and watched it grow over years of tolerance and support is an editor unlikely to come back here once that work has been cut down and thrown away. Because, really, why would they? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, but this time he doesn't even pay you along the way. If it ain't fun, then why bother? - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incidentally

School is probably more important, but yes I'll try to leave you a message if I am the person to bring up the deletion discussion again. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here's an Award

The Special Barnstar
I award you The Candlejack Barnstar for your tirless work on Freakazoid! and putting up wi 71.233.184.164 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
...What? --Kizor 00:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

for putting up with my candlejack vand 71.233.184.164 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Phillip Kazmierczak

FYI, User:Derek.cashman unilaterally overturned the merging.[4] User:Dorftrottel 21:29, February 15, 2008

[edit] Death Note

Hi. I've undone your removal of the merge tags on Death Note. While I think the idea of such a merge was totally dumb and agree with the removal, I think per the ArbCom injunction, no merge tags can be removed until they do something. You may want to double check at ArbCom though, and if I've interpreted it wrong, feel free to re-remove. Collectonian (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Kazmierczak merge

Hello. I noticed that you had previously commented on the article Steven Kazmierczak into Northern Illinois University shooting. I just thought I would let you know that the discussion has been reopened here here if you wish to provide additional input since the one-week cool down period has expired. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass D&D AfDs

People have talked about mass nominations many times over at the WikiProject, but past attempts have always been shot down. The majority of these articles have existed for many months (sometimes longer) with notability tags on them- and not been touched. If anyone truly cared so much, why didn't they fix it then? I am not going to allow my attempt to clear out the rubbish (I'd say over three quarters of our D&D articles, including some on supplements and modules, should go) to be stopped short like they have been in the past. I'm an avid gamer myself- I would rather see these improved and kept than deleted, and will even help anyone who wants the help to improve any of the articles I have nominated, but, realistically, I have nominated only those that are ridiculously non-notable in this first wave. If you can think of some other method for dealing with the cruft-filled corner of Wikipedia that is D&D, that will actually achieve something, I'm all ears. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I have started a place for centralised discussion of the mass nomming, here. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your protection comment, I've seen similar myself. People link in such a way that others need only click a couple of times and it is done. I'm just wondering who I offended, or whether I was picked at random. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Something bugs me about vandalism counters, and I can't quite put my finger on it. I used to use one, but I don't think I will again. Anyway, I've kept my userpage protected for a while. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo redirect Minus (temporary)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Minus (temporary), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Minus (temporary) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Minus (temporary), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D&D AfDs.

guess i should reply here rather than my own talk page...this odd form of messaging has me confused. anyway i nominated about 5-6 articles for AfD that were sorely lackign reason to have their own article. i learned yesterday thanks to an admin how to actually do it and wanted to try my hand at clearing out some articles that are in no way shape or form noteworthy within the game let alone outside of it. i have planned to watch how those went and see whether concensus showed that i was correct in nominating them for lack of any notability, and whether i had done them correctly if any pass deletion to see what happens when they are deleted. "Be BOLD in editing." form some WP:HELP page or something is all i was doing. i understand a multitude of AfDs doesn't allow for much time in 4-7 days to gathering informaiton to present against the AfD as for keeping the articles, but i searched products at my hand form the published (WotC) and found little mention of those 5 creatures in any of them save for a single module or adventure/sourcebook. if they are not notable within their own genre then i figured they would not have any notability outside of it to the real world since they were made up for the game of D&D. if i am confused about the notability then please feel free to elaborate on where i made the mistake in my judgement of their notewothyness so i know for the future. otherwise i cannot learn whats what around here. and i have mentioned many times to the wikiproject that the articles should not replace the need for the purchase of the books by having a stub on every monsters just because the OGL/SRD allways reproduction of the material for free. i am also wrong in thinking wikipedia isnt a place for lists? because the only information that would not be copied directly form the published material on some of these things would constitue original research, or made up facts. and plaugarism as far as i know is not wanted here and that would be the only way to add to some of these obscure D&D monsters would be copy their information entirely from the published book. thanks for your help in understanding this. i don't know where to look for a response (my talk page or yours?) but i will be watching while i watch me 5 or so AfD progress as both a learning experience in the process and hopefully cleaning out articles that cannot under current circumstances be expounded upon with more detail other than a few in-universe sentences or replacing the need for purchasing the published material. shadzar talk 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kizor, this many AFDs is flooding the system. Who can keep up with all of this? It's too much work for editors, and too much work for the admins to keep track of. 5 or so is fine, but when there are 40 more out there, it's overkill. Maybe most or all of them will go, as determined by consensus, and maybe there are a lot of D&D articles that consensus will rule against, but I think it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to try to push so many at once. Patience, as they say, is a virtue. Also, rather than appeasing those who want to see RPG articles go away in general ("see, we can take care of our business!") I think a mass dump of nominations like this will only encourage them to go after articles which most of us do feel are worthy of keeping ("if those can get deleted, then so can these!"). BOZ (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And the list grows ever anon... BOZ (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planet killers

Don't get too emotional about this. First, someone says to delete something, someone says no, it will get better, and it doesn't get deleted on this basis, and it doesn't get better. Thats an excuse to leave all kinds of garbage lying around on here forever, rather against the rules. If threat deletion in the past doesn't bring about a change for the better, what will? Second, what potential does it have, operating within the rules it doesn't have any. Its grouping together dozens of seperate things from different universes under one thing because of supposed similarilities, similarities which might be real but have no reliable sources, no sources of anykind outside of fan talk. Its comparable to an article comparing and explaining phasers, proton torpedoes, photon torpedoes, blasters, lasers and PPGs. Or having one article comparing Star Destroyers with Consitution class starships. Theres no basis for it outside of fan discussions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk • contribs) 00:02, March 5, 2008

Actually I've changed my mind, It would be best to keep the article, it can be made better, providing it is changed to List of type article, I'm not sure how to do that, I usually just wipe out someones opinion or fill in some proof based facts. So, if you could help that would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mythbusters

Well, first I gotta ask why in the world you tracked me down over an edit I made half a year ago. Second, the injuries edit was a list, it wasn't notable to the subject matter, it was not in an appropriate tone. Consider how it would look to someone browsing the article with no prior knowledge of the show. Would it really be important to them to know the mishaps the crew have endured? It would be on par with listing every robot Grant has made, or every time Buster has been used in a myth or when Jamie and Adam have a build off. Mishaps are a part of the show, yes, but are they important to an encyclopedia article on the show? Not really, there's just no point to it. It was an irrelevant, badly written section.

As for adding mishaps to the episode guides, I frankly don't care, I'm not an Admin or a Bearucrat and I have turned my attentions elsewhere a long time ago. I don't think such things need to be noted, but w/e. Go nuts. The Clawed One (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Calling what I said 'insults' is a joke. You'll notice I haven't blanked the article or murdered any of my fellow editors. Funny story, I've recently started using smileys after many of my posts to indicate I am not clenching my fists and killing puppies between page loads. Maybe I should just use them after ALL my posts if people are going to be so hypersensitive.

The vast majority of people don't break out in fits at that kind of language so I am very accustomed to it and it usually helps drive a point and indicate that you feel strongly about something. I have made no attacks, though there are plenty of such real attacks on Wikipedia that you may want to attend to. Thanks for the heads-up but I respectfully disagree. PS: Please don't suggest to me I am arrogant towards others and lecture me on communities. That, unlike any of my comments, qualifies as a personal attack to me. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convo

I have been busy lately, but what do you want? IAmSasori (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Qfg2_hot_female_pixels.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Qfg2_hot_female_pixels.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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 non-free media 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. Kelly hi! 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please feel free to keep on making fixes at Robot

Someone who knows WP:CITE no less :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London route of olympic flame

The final sentence is POV through the use of the words Optimum and Extent. The information is also covered in the previous sourced sentence, so the final un-sourced sentence is unnecessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mungyodance

Unless you consider Bemanistyle a reliable source. ViperSnake151 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gavin collins RfC strikethroughs

Marking their posts this way is inappropriate (if there are such concerns of credibility, then this should be articulated on the talk page as per any other editor - there is no authority for other editors to strikethrough past views). Unless the banned editor(s) were involved in the dispute under another account, then there is no issue with the credibility - it is a view that can be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Being overcautious around the editor, I note again that I was explaining others' behaviour, not doing it. Anyway. That's fair enough, though I personally believe that this did significantly aid the discussion. Proven inexcusable malevolence is a bit of a credibility problem, clearly marking said problematic views is a non-trivial help, and and strikethroughs were specifically proposed as a way of pointing out a problem while keeping posts legible. --Kizor 10:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that I was not at all suggesting you were engaging in this behaviour - but stating the behaviour itself (done by whoever) is inappropriate, even with such an explanation. The talk page exists if any editor has an issue with another view or endorsement, and would like to make a comment of this sort. The only way the view is problematic is if there is a conflict of interest, or the editor was using the sock-puppet account as an additional endorsement of a view. Neither was the case here. Further, in the case an editor changes their mind about endorsement, they often strikethrough their original rather than remove it - this was not the case here either. This is why I don't consider the behavior, or the explanation, acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
And I note that I noted that you did note that, I only noted that for the benefit of the onlooker(s). The conflicting interpretations of strikethrough are a good point. Want to copypaste this discussion into the RfC's talk page? --Kizor 12:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
And I note that you noted that I note that I had noted that you had noted that you only noted for the purpose of explaining the behaviour itself, and note that you note that you had noted for the benefit of onlookers. I don't think it's so significant to need a discussion there, but if others find the same issue, I'm sure we can (once again) note what we both noted here. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted. --Kizor 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helsinki Times

I nominated it for deletion because it was one of many labeled as being "conflict of interest" by User:AlexNewArtBot. Maybe I was a bit overzealous in nominating, but most of the articles listed with it were speedily deleted as well, and it came off to me as being self-promotion. I hate it when I see self-promotional articles that come off as advertisements.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, its withdrawn.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) We need people who are willing to change direction when appropriate a lot more than people who never have to. I am not certain about the eventual fate of the article, just that it has a factual and non-trivial basis. I cleaned the article up after Dhartung did and added what I could on short notice. --Kizor 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for all the laughs

Saw your name on another page and got curious. Saw your list of quotes (yes, Wikipedia takes itself too seriously) and list of "Articles I've worked on". Then I read them, and they were just what I needed after a serious editing session. Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I only regret that there aren't more to offer you. Valid articles on deranged matters are - well, you've seen the pitch elsewhere. Allow me to plug the way I once took the wind of a flame war, visible at the bottom of this page (still can't believe that worked.) I can also drop you a note when I finish one of my projects long lost in the general chaos: an article on children and fire (completely an excuse to use an image of a girl in flames from Der Struwwelpeter) and an essay on editing articles on breaking disasters (totally an excuse to use the acronym WP:BREAKGLASS). --Kizor 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh most wise Diagonal Pumpkin Half-Squirrel National Geographic Rubber Duck Yodeling Tweeet, what are your exalted intentions regarding the humble Master of Orion article? Philcha (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It'd take a hour or two to do a full analysis, so let us say that I'll know that once I get there. (Yes, I am obsessive. Why do you ask?) --Kizor 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Obsessive, and never alone with schizophrenia, Sir Echo. Philcha (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Darmok and Jilad at Tenagra. --Kizor 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biological issues in Jurassic Park

Hello, Kizor;

Sure, I'll have a look at Biological issues in Jurassic Park over the next few days. I can at least make sure that the Procompsognathus section gets some citations. Kizor 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Schlock Mercenary characters

Probably the best thing is; put the two images you suggest back in the article, and ensure that the text makes some reference to the images (such as the style of the artist) so that they hit the "For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique" part of WP:NFC. They'll probably conform to the policies then. As to your second point, unfortunately, the images are still subject to NFCC even if the artist has given Wikipedia permission to use them, because for an image to be considered non-free permission must be given for it to be re-used anywhere. Hope this helps, Black Kite 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it does. I will endeavour to do this as part of a larger rewrite of the article in the near future. --Kizor 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Just to let you know that this edit isn't in accordance with our original research policy. We can only include material that we can cite a reliable source for. "You can verify it yourself" is only acceptable for the most obvious facts. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

Hey, sorry I took so long to get back to you. I seem to have missed your message when you left it a while back. I just replied at User_talk:Dmcdevit#Fair_use_of_Schlock_Mercenary_character_images. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grandpa

I did find him amusing and decided to just go with DENY. KnightLago (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam-blacklisting zealots

Thanks for helping out with link preservation reverts of my COI-investigation posting. Having previously crossed paths with JzG/Guy, I did research and found there's still more to it.

I think I found another thing JzG/Guy was up to by not compromising to leave the seven-some valid-use Cafepress links unaltered. As of his Apr 21 nomination, apparently he intends to get Cafepress spam-blacklisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Cafepress. To meet the header rules, all of the article and talk pages have to have the candidate links "removed" (links do not need to be removed from user or user talk pages but he removed them anyway).

JzG/Guy did a prompt delete at his page of your debate with him and others, so I copied it to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Cafepress page, preceded (and now followed) by my own complaints.

This case is problematic since the Wikipedia Cafepress Shop semi-officially posted in the past, and some normal editors still think it's ok to raise money for Wikipedia with such a link. There's even a link in Jimbo's talk archives. I think this is the kind of spam that was intended by the header rule that reads: "Have other methods of control been exhausted?" Apparently they have not.

I haven't located any technical information, but it appears from context that a spamlink can't be separately blacklisted for article vs. talk pages. This appears to mean that zealots have to violate WP:Talk editing guiderules on discussion pages in order to 'get' spam, even when there is no mastermind spammer or pushy site to 'get'.

So far two posters have failed to address my (and your) well-expressed concerns. Indeed, Hu12 ignored the discussion issues and simply said he would add Cafepress when remaining links in articles could be purged. Now those sort of blasé non-responses sound like yet another editing clique that JzG/Guy has joined. On the other hand, I've known A.B. to be ok, and he still sounds reasonable in this Apr 17 post (following Yamla's listing of wargs.com):

I disagree with blacklisting this many links added by regular editors without more consensus from the community and I am especially disagree with blacklisting them first before cleaning them up. This is going to disrupt probably 1000 pages. A perverse feature of our software filter is that when editors get the screen telling them they're editing an article with a blacklisted link, they lose whatever they were editing when they click on the "return to" link at the bottom. ¶ I'm also wary of blacklisting links that regular editors are routinely adding. Perhaps they're not a good choice, but I don't think the blacklist is a good tool for raising editorial quality; it's a blunt instrument for blocking persistent, bad faith abuse by outsiders, not well-meaning poor judgement by our honest contributors.

One thing that might make a difference in a debate there is that you are enabled to edit the spam-blacklist, while I can't.

Any suggestions on how to proceed? Milo 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] streams of insults

Regarding this (now-removed) comment: (i) What precisely is the issue, iyo? (ii) I'm not "throwing insults against articles", I'm simply noting that pure plot summaries are not encyclopedic articles by any stretch of imagination. If you think otherwise and believe Wikipedia should allow this (which it currently does not, to my understanding), you might want to address this at e.g. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not or WP:VPP. (iii) So what should I stop? Repeating what Wikipedia policy says about the issue of pure plot summary articles? Dorftrottel (warn) 11:09, April 29, 2008

I removed that comment to phrase it better, but since you ask: (i) The issue in that particular section is the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen. This pops up every now and then, and it is best addressed promptly. Derailing the topic for any reason sucks. (ii) That is what you were doing, but I figured you would not object to my description considering that in doing so you went well out of your way and off-topic to belittle such things. Those enormous quotation marks looked nice, though, thanks for that. If I was wrong, then I apologize. (iii) I think (i) covers this. HTH. --Kizor 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen — If I'm not completely mistaken, we do indeed agree that it is generally a bad idea to plunge into blind actionism without awaiting an expert opinion. OTOH, a court case is not a good reason to defend crappy articles, either. What I (and e.g. also Ursasapien) are trying to establish is that disproportionate plot summaries are a matter of purely encyclopedic concern, entirely regardless of that court case. To make it very clear: No blind actionism does not equal No action that goes, even it's for only indirectly related reasons, in a similar direction (i.e. stubbifying/AfD/etcpp). Dorftrottel (complain) 12:20, April 29, 2008

[edit] hahahahahahaha's

While the rest of your message is something I can only read and dwell on, I did have a couple pennies about your parting line. I think you're near-dead on the money, but I also think that what draws attention to the seriousness in the first place is the massive amounts of (to put it politely) flotsam (especially in combination with the relative berevity of certain major "serious" topics) I've seen the length of random "daughter articles" for certain Disney shows or nerd-cult classics completely eclipse The Beatles, not just in raw number of kilobytes, but in coverage of the most banal tangentially-related minutiae imaginable. Call me an elitist, call me a flower child, call me anything you like, but I think there's more to be gained from List of places where John Lennon took LSD than List of second-season minor characters of Oh-My-Yu-Gi-Mon. Anyway, to try and tie this rambling diatribe together - I don't see people making fun of C-SPAN2 for the seriousness of its book discussions. I suspect there may be a reason why. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replied at my talkpage.

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

Taemyr (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my views on the gavin collins contratemps- forgive that it's looooong

"request for comment was made by "the fans," who are bullying him because he attempts to remove non-notable material that the fans value disproportionately."

-There's no doubt that there are quite a few people who concentrate on these articles, who speak of each article in terms of it's "notability within the RPG community", thinking or claiming that WP:RS is not necessary for these articles to remain. This is not just the case on these articles, but such people exist on a lot of articles which are seen as important within their area of as interest- for instance in paganism, science fiction or occult articles, non-notable to uninvolved editors articles are fought over often in quite an intimidating way (at least, as a woman, I find people with an intense interest in an article and promulgating it or a particular view of it in an onslaught-type way, either a single editor or a group, intimidating and it stops me editing articles where I experience that. Which is why I think Gavin's persistence in the face of such opposition is to be commended.)

"I looked into the "Evidence of disputed behavior" of the RfC, and everything on that list is not an issue of what he does but how he does it"

They tended to argue if I remember rightly, that he adds the tags without then seeking to improve what problems he has with an article. But if an article is non-notable with hardly any WP:RS, there's no point in improving something to which no verifiable or NPOV info could be added, which is not encyclopedic anyway and which should be deleted as it doesn't belong here , if people could succeed in doing so. As such, he's under no obligation to do anything else to the article and can do nothing else if he's looked for WP:RS and has failed to find any. Leave it to those with "specialist" knowledge of the non-mainstream sources which are not really WP:RS and sometimes are not online for the rest of us to be able to verify any of what these editors claim these sources say, to try and add sources and convince the rest of us.:)

Several uninvolved editors can see, the issue is lack of reliable sources and notability.

"(excessive and inappropriate use of tags might be arguable, but adding the notability, primarysources and nofootnotes tags in one go is clearly redundant.)"

Why, if they're all true? If all the tags are true or he believes them true, there's nothing redundant about it. (Whether he's right depends on considering each article concerned- but no doubt he's sometimes/often right on all these counts.)

No doubt he sometimes accidentally adds tags which some observers think aren't right, either due to it being his own opinion, or because if he sees a lack of notability, he may well wish to see the article gone, due to being overwhelmed with hatred. This is where his actions might be wrong, if that is his motivation in such a case (which of course he probably wouldn't admit and could not be proven.) I can understand his feelings, though:)

"I got the impression that you thought the RfC was made to attack Gavin, but I'd rather not assume that."

You can't deny that a lot of editors who edit these articles, "ganged up on" Gavin in that RfC- at least in terms of numbers. And no doubt they would like to see him gone from those articles- who wouldn't feel the same if a person repeatedly added tags we considered unfair, to articles to which we were very attached? I think they are not in touch with the mainstream perception of the importance of some of these articles' subjects, which can be seen by the lack of reliable sources which have noted them. So no it's not a personal attack exactly on their part, personal attacks may not be that prevalent on such article's talk pages but intimidation and lack of assuming good faith of contributors who genuinely and rightly consider some of these articles non-notable, is frequent, as it is on any subjects which are very important to some groups of fans/subcultures, all over the wiki. Anyway, I hope this helps you know my opinion lol:). Merkin's mum 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawing AfD

Done. Anything else needed done? I was going to add the closing templates, but figured an admin should probably do it for closure. asenine say what? 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha! I'll design you a sig if you want? asenine say what? 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for giving Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim some attention. It kind of needed it and I'm glad you were willing to do some work on it. Cheers! Thunderforge (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

Good morning. I have a small request for aid and an admonishment. Giving the request first might seem disingenuous, but giving the admonishment first could sour further dealings. Which one should I lead with? --Kizor 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally good with assuming good faith so don't be ashamed to lay all your cards out. I'll assess your request on its own merits, and help in whatever way I can. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. First: this edit felt wrong - my use of English seemed off. I'd be obliged if you reviewed it.
Second: You tampon, you voted for the deletion of an article about TV show characters while calling it an article about video game characters and citing WP:GAMETRIVIA. I waived my right to complain in tearing you a new one in that discussion, but you hopefully agree that this sort of thing shouldn't happen. --Kizor 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I was confused about that when I looked at the AFD as well. I saw the article because it was listed within the gaming AFDs. When I looked at the article, I saw issues of non notable information on a fictional topic. Gametrivia does a good job of summarizing the problems with these kinds of articles, and I usually rely upon that. On the other hand, I saw mentions of a TV show. I probably should have stuck to WP:N and WP:FICT and WP:PLOT rather than taking the easy way out with WP:GAMETRIVIA. But I still stand by my recommendation for deletion. This was lazy on my part, but not because I didn't review the article or attempt to seek sources. It was lazy because I got sloppy with my reasoning.

I also looked at the government simulation article and tried to improve it. The paragraph about hearts of iron still needs work, but I don't have enough experience with those games to clarify. I hope I've been helpful. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, if I was seeking to change your opinion then my timing would be as badly off as possible. I'm only concerned with due diligence in AfDs - !votes that get the topic wrong get ugly in most of all possible ways. (A personal favorite comes from last January: Six people called for speedy delete without denying or in any way acknowledging the explanation about the ineligibility of speedy deletion on the second line of the nomination.) For the record, Avatar is a TV show and has spawned a few cash-in games that have negligible impact on the main franchise.

Thank you kindly for your work on the government simulator article, you certainly have been helpful in aiding its legibility and that of later revisions. I do intend to make another pass later on because (a) I wish to put some more focus on the differences between government simulators and other genres, as similarities are common but usually very superficial - Civ IV, for instance, is about empire management but only marginally about government management. It doesn't have domestic politics. Half the time the player doesn't know what kind of state he's running until something uses his title. (b) I'm a greedy bastard. --Kizor 01:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I try to keep an open mind, and I think the ability to take criticism is a virtue. I keep an eye on a lot of the video game genre articles and they need a lot of work. Almost anything would be considered an improvement. Keep in mind that the government simulation article is already at GA status, though. It's one of the few genre articles that is. I'm not sure it deserves it, but we definitely want to make sure we don't move backwards. Good luck and happy editing. Randomran (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't even say I know what fish you're talking about. But let me put it to you this way: I'd ignore the WP:GNG that a subject have coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject if it was clear that it met notability in some other way (perhaps in the way you stated it) and the article really did a good job of avoiding original research, and using proper verification and neutral language. I can't even remember what topic you're talking about anymore, so I can't comment on that specific basis. Of course, that's just my opinion. But I tend to see policy as a quality control, not as a nuisance. PS: you don't say I too much, and you probably could never say it too much in North America. I find people to be pretty self-centered in general, and I wouldn't say that about you from my limited experience. Anyway, I'm happy to help anytime. Good luck and good editing. Randomran (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Although I find it a little strange that you want to "collect quotes". But be my guest. I'm happy to discuss wikipedia standards and policy or what have you. Randomran (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ArrKelaan crash.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ArrKelaan crash.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Hey, I got your message. Thanks for it, I appreciated it greatly. --Fastfission (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft

Hello. If you are interested, and not to busy, would you like to join Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fancruft? We need members. Thanks. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 07:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but I don't think that we are ideologically compatible at the moment. --Kizor 07:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

okay. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 10:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionism

Thank you for your comment about my post to User talk:Guest9999.

I don't worry about deletionism. Basically it's a small cadre of soldiers trying to hold back an invasion. There's no way they can do it.

The World's population (the typical user) will win, by sheer numbers. Look at how much Wikipedia has grown. Look at how much coverage of fiction has grown. The deletionists have barely made a dent.

The Transhumanist    22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

You're not into geography, are you?

You're not familiar with advanced tools like AWB and Linky, are you?

I've been delving into geography lately, in an effort to improve the Lists of basic topics coverage of knowledge in general - after all, it is one of Wikipedia's main tables of contents systems, and it doubles as an outline of human knowledge (albeit under constructon).

On July 15th, I'll be co-coordinating a (huge) collaboration/contest at the WP:AWC, which shall endeavor to develop 200+ pages (one for every country of the world) for the geography section of the Lists of basic topics system. At least three types of awards will be given out (and are in the process of being designed specifically for this event, as we speak).

I'm looking for co-coordinators to help out, in overseeing the competition/collaboration so it runs smoothly, and to help prepare for the big event.

If you are interested, please let me know.

The Transhumanist    22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mind if I quote you

Left on my talk page: Re O RLY AFD: Do you mind if I quote you? If not, do you mind if I fix your spelling when I do so? The people around here are as hung up on good writing as they are on any website centered around it. --Kizor 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You refered to this I think:

  • Keep Ya'll suckas be hating, o rly be making, your money yo cars, that sheet takes it far, orly kicks but, gota funky ol' strut, beat's your best page, well off da gauge, so don't try to front, you'll all take da brunt, of orly's 'leet force, He'll win- Of Course.... Wack ass sucaks be fronting on da owl, he out on da prowl, gonna kick down yo door, don't post here no more- fool65.185.93.86 (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to quote if you like, and you can fix my crappy spelling if you wish.

I didn't understand what you meant about "The people are as hung up on good writing as they are on any website centered around it". Not quite sure what your refering to and what that has to do w/ my silly rhymes.

Buy yeah, you can adopt my silliness as your own if it suits you 65.185.93.86 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)