User talk:Kizor

Please click here to leave me a new message.
I will typically answer on your talk page to make sure you get the notification.

Archive: 2003-2005 Archive: 2006

---

Canon merge

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

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

Re:Reversion of Master of Orion

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

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

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

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

re: Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet AfD

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

Also, you're a girl? Ewww.

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

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_005.png

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_001.png

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Orion_006.png

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

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

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

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

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

Character listing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The noob

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

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

Snort

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

Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Kizor/Sore Thumbs

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

The God's Pack

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Retention of history in off-site migrations

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

Re: Roswell That Ends Well

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

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

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

Re: Update

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

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

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

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

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

Kerflufle

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

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

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

CFD notice

Tim! 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tech shooting

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

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

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

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

Your Work at Virginia Tech massacre

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

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

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

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

thanks

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

Active/Passive Voice On VTM

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

Victims at Virginia Tech -- okay, sorry

(copied from my user page)

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

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

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

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

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

Bahamut Lagoon

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

stars

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

Guybrush

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

RE: erfworld

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Kamen1.png

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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

Image:MOO3 1.png

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

Image:Qfg4fighter.jpg

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

Image:Qfg4paladin.jpg

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

Image:Qfg4thief.jpg

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

Image:Qfg4wizard.jpg

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

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

Image:Babelfish-right.gif

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

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

Image:Elgoonishshive grace.jpg

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

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

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

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

Image:Master of Orion cover.jpg

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

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

Image:Orion 000.png

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

Image:Orion 001.png

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

Image:Orion 005.png

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

Image:Orion 006.png

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

Missing edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Userfication request

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