User talk:Kizor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive: 2003-2005 Archive: 2006

---

Contents 1 Canon merge 2 Re:Reversion of Master of Orion 3 re: Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet AfD 4 Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_005.png 5 Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_001.png 6 Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_006.png 7 Character listing 8 The noob 9 Snort 10 Quotes 11 User:Kizor/Sore Thumbs 12 The God's Pack 13 Re: Retention of history in off-site migrations 14 Re: Roswell That Ends Well 15 Re: Update 16 Kerflufle

[edit] Canon merge

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

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

[edit] Re:Reversion of Master of Orion

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

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

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

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

[edit] re: Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet AfD

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

Also, you're a girl? Ewww.

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

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

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_005.png

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

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_001.png

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

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_006.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Orion_006.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Character listing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The noob

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

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

[edit] Snort

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

[edit] Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] User:Kizor/Sore Thumbs

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

[edit] The God's Pack

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Re: Retention of history in off-site migrations

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

[edit] Re: Roswell That Ends Well

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

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

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

[edit] Re: Update

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Kerflufle

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

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

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