User talk:Kraftlos

Go fuck yourself

Don't give me patronizing warnings you fucking dipshit.

Archives
Archive 1 (Account creation to June 2008)
Archive 2 (June 2008 - Late October 2008)
Archive 3 (Late October 2008 - ???)

Helpful Links
Citing Sources: Wikipedia:Citing_sources
WP Good Article Criteria: WP:Good Article
What Wikipedia is not (I'm surprised how many people haven't read this, it's important!)
Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy
Kraftlos' Top Ten Wikipedia Pet Peeves

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

The New York Times

Hello, I am wondering why (specifically) my edits to the NYTimes article were removed. I read the article on Fox News, and in the introductory overview paragraph was a statement that read to the effect of "Fox News has been accused by observers and critics of having a conservative bias." I figured that it would only be fair to point out media outlets that had a liberal bias. I chose the NYTimes, as it has been criticized in the past for having a liberal bias. I put an analogous statement in the NYTimes overview section that stated that a study had been done by UCLA that determined that the NYTimes did in FACT have a liberal bias. I provided a source and a link to that source, whereas the Fox News statement did NOT have either. I fugured this would certainly be acceptable, but it was not. My edits were removed with merely a statement that said that my edits were "not constructive." What is the logic behind this? I'm getting the strong feeling that wikipedia itself has a liberal bias, and I am simply being given the runaround by being handed off to you. Please get back me ASAP. Thank you,

CaptainNicodemus (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a discussion regarding this issue at Talk:The New York Times#Labeled as "liberal" in lede. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made that edit while on vandalism patrol, so I'll grant that I didn't give very much thought, the idea that this is some sort of revenge for comments on the Fox News page kind of bothers me. As I recall the source that you use didn't appear to be very solid and the tone didn't seem to fit the rest of the article. This really should have been introduced on the talkpage, but it appears that's happened now. Anyway, I don't mind the idea of adding a section on bias, so long as it can be supported by reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a peer reviewed study by UCLA reliable enough? That's what my source was. The charge of conservative bias in the Fox News article has NO source at all, yet THAT is acceptable?? You have an uphill battle if you're trying to convince me that wikipedia has no liberal bias. You guys accept any sort of comment as long as it's anti-conservative, yet you refuse to accept a perfectly legitimate study that is "anti"-liberal. The charge of Fox News being conservative is allowed to stay in the article, yet it has NO credible source to back it up. My charge of The New York Times being liberal has an academic study to back it up, yet when I post it, all of a sudden people start arguing that it's not acceptable, their methods at UCLA are biased etc, and my comment is removed. All this, while NO ONE dares to question the liberal thinktank Media Matters, which is the source of most of the anti-conservative "facts" in wikipedia's articles. I would be convinced that wikipedia was not liberally biased if you allowed me to put my comment about the NYTimes being accused of being liberal in its opening paragraph, just the way that the Fox News article accuses Fox News of being conservative in ITS opening paragraph. Without this, I have no choice but to tell everyone I know that wikipedia is a biased source that is a joke, rather than a credible source. Please get back to me ASAP. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the fox news story you should probably flag it or edit it to conform to a neutral point of view, and if you think your source is good, I'd just try again on the NYT article. I'm not a regular contributer to either article so this isnt really a good place to address these questions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Fox News and think I might be able to clear things up a bit. The statement in the lead of Fox News is not unsourced, it's just not cited at that point. The lead section of a Wikipedia article serves as a summary of the rest of the article. The two sentences you are referring to are a summary of the article's section "Allegations of political bias". Also, your addition to The New York Times has not been reverted because of the source being unreliable, but because "this highly disputed study is not significant enough for the intro". Note that the user didn't say, that the study was too unreliable to be included in the article at all. I suggest you put your addition back in, but as a separate section. Please also note, that the grand majority of Wikipedia articles have major issues. The few articles without issues (such as being biased) can be found at Wikipedia:Featured articles. These are the only articles usable as precedent. If no featured article on a comparable topic can be found, editors have to fall back to the guidelines, in this case Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I hope this was helpful. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Goodraise! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already DID edit it to have a neutral point of view (3 times) and each time it was removed. How is FoxNews' bias worthy of being in the opening paragraph, but not the NYTimes'? That means there is a liberal bias on wikipedia's part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the lead section. Let me quote Wikipedia's lead section guideline: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." (emphasis mine) The FoxNews article has a whole section dedicated to different opinions on the topic of whether it is biased or not. ~~The NY-Times article has no such section (yet). A section that does not exist can't be summarized.~~ -- Goodraise (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, it seems the article actually has such a section: The New York Times#Controversy. Not only that, but Wikipedia also has a whole article on the topic of Criticism of The New York Times. - This means, the proper place for your addition is that article. - As for the lead of the main article, it should summarize the articles controversy section (currently it doesn't do that). I'd also like to point out, that the proper place to discuss this isn't Kraftlos' talk page but Talk:The New York Times. And one more piece of advice: Don't run around crying "Wikipedia has a liberal bias!" Anyone can edit Wikipedia, that includes people biased in any direction. When reading Wikipedia, one has to keep that in mind. You don't believe everything you read, do you? -- Goodraise (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind hosting the conversation lol. But as I said before, I was on vandalism patrol, I never have been actively involved in the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 SLA Northern offensive

Why did you undone all of my edits that I made in the last 15 days on the article? You also removed a bunch of references I added and a lot of referenced text. What's your problem buddy? And please don't give me that story that my edit was unconstructive, I even added another reference in my last edit before you reverted me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited that article before, so you must have me mistaken for someone else. As far the sources you were using: TamilNet is considered a shakey source by the Associated Press [[1]]. I was unable to determine anything about tamileelamnews, so I have no way of determine it's reliability either. The other sources you used seemed to be fine, but two sources mentioned earlier seem to be operating from a single point of view. I think it would be better to have more solid sources in the article; preferable one that doesn't deal with a single subject, one that's more international in its approach and that doesn't seem to be directly invested in the conflict. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Man ... critics' reception

Hey Kraftlos,

I noticed that you reverted the Harvard Man entry, suggesting that my edits were not constructive. They may not have been optimally worded, but I feel that the version of the article currently posted reflects a conventional wisdom that is simply false. Harvard Man was a commercial flop, but some critics had much enthusiasm for it. Look at the entry on metacritic if you don't believe me.

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/harvardman

I would be happy to work with you to make a more accurate version of the page that is constructive and properly worded. Do you have any suggestions for editing the page to reflect the enthusiasm of some critics?

Longshot.222 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that it was a bad movie; Roeper said "This movie is so bad, that it's almost worth seeing because it's so bad.". The article adequately conveyed it's flat-line reception from critics; but you cant insert a point of view about the quality of the movie into the article, the article needs to remain from a neutral point of view. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kraftlos, you are all about deleting the contributions of others, and not so much about listening to what they have to say. Please do the following: 1. Go to the link I posted. 2. Note that the claim I made concerning the critical response to the film was correct. 3. Revise your previous claims in light of this. 4. Note that I was not deviating from neutrality in my comments, but correcting an incorrect (though widely held) belief concerning critical reception to the film.

I await your response, and hope it is a bit more constructive this time.

Longshot.222 (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty insulting that you assume that I didn't view the link before commenting on it (or that I'm all about removing the work of others). As I have said, yes, its a bad movie; it was a commercial failure. The article already said that. If you're going to state that it's a commercial failure in the introduction, it must be mentioned elsewhere in the article and be backed up with a reliable source that states that per WP:V. And dont patronize me giving me a to-do list. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't want this to be a conversation about our feelings. I only want to make the Harvard Man entry as good as possible. On that goal I hope we can agree. The Harvard Man entry states that the film "received little critical or popular acclaim".

But Peter Travers of Rolling Stone says "Harvard Man is something rare and riveting: a wild ride that relies on more than special effects".

Roger Ebert gave the film three stars.

A.O. Scott of the New York Times calls it "an earnest coming-of-age story, and a cautionary tale about the perils of drug use, gambling and existentialist philosophy".

These are all verifiable sources. This is not a "flat-line reception from critics", as you claim. Sooner or later, the page should reflect the enthusiasm of the aforementioned critics. What is the best way to include their enthusiasm along with the disdain of other critics?

Longshot.222 (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should create a reception section, that could briefly talk about critical reception and maybe include blockquotes from a critic on each side. Generally, Wikipedia articles try to keep the intro clear of footnotes, but it just didn't seem approprate to put into the introduction if there's no other mention of the critics in the article. And from metacritic and rottentomatoes, I didn't get the impression that any critic was ecstatic about the movie, just that somet thought that it stunk and some thought it was alright. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for getting that vandalism to my Talk page. You got it so quick i accidentally clicked on your reversal and had to reverse myself. Ulric1313 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm making edits faster than bots. I guess that means I spend to much time on here. ;-) --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Listen I did not vandilize the Long Island Iced Tea page. It is a fact with the updated history of who actually invented the drink and it can be backed up by a new book coming out. Please stop editing my edits without knowing the facts and sending me warnings. THANK YOU KINDLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.213.79 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a reference to a reliable source that states the bartender as the inventor, if you wish to change the page, you're going to have to find a reliable source that aggrees with you. Also, you are now in violation of the three revert rule. You need to take this to a talk page instead of edit warring. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source that was linked to that inventor of the drink is someone who claims to have invented it but actually did not. References can and will be provided if I was given a chance to actually finish before my work was deleted and warnings were sent to me over and over. Geesh how did you even find that page to edit it so quick? Please find some other article to focus on. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.213.79 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. You need to have the reference available when you make the change, or it doesn't go up. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DO I

hi, how do i edit my user page description, I want to take it off and make it simple. every time I click on edit this page, it pops up with a prompt with some php files edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalnewyork (talk • contribs) 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you edit User:Alalnewyork the URL automatically switches to the long form: index.php?title=User:Alalnewyork&action=edit. This is the same page, its just that wikipedia isn't masking the file name. If you aren't getting a normal edit screen though, you might be having technical problems. It should look exactly the same as editing this page, or any other page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, your userpage really shouldn't contain addresses or phone numbers. The page should really be about you, your interests, and how they relate to wikipedia. Wikipedia not a directory or a social networking site. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogg

dont messs with my eddits.

Your edit wasn't helpful, so it was reverted. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its the truth

racism is badddd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.114.105 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed not?

Racism and nordocentrism are not the same thing. This article is discussing a form of ethnocentrism, when we study it academically, we use specific names. It might be a form of racism, but calling it a more specific name doesn't change the meaning. It shouldn't matter if you think racism is disgusting, it still can be studied. And please, no more personal attacks. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why. cant take it?

No, it's not constructive and Wikipedia policies require all editors to remain civil when interacting with other editors. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

by the way its Nordicism not Nordocentrism, and it would be Nordocentricism anyways.

Ok --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not become sarcastic with me, and contractions should be used as little as possible also. Remain civil. Please. Stop attacking me personally.

This conversation is done. Just please be more careful next time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosling (band) / Valderrama!

Hi, you don't see the copy&paste? 217.233.90.148 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but it looks like someone redirected the page in a really sloppy manner. However on closer inspection, this article doesn't cite any sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, what I mean? Valderrama! is copy&pasted from Gosling (band), a copyright violation. Please delete Valderrama and move Gosling (band) to Valderrama - if you are an admin. 217.233.90.148 (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages are released under GFDL License, so all the content can be copied and modified at will; no copyright violations are possible. Are you saying that the content of the Gosling article came from a copyrighted website? Because that would be a problem. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speechless. Copy&paste will not be deleted in enwiki? I'm an admin in dewiki since years and we need few seconds for deletion of something along those lines. Happy new year. 217.233.90.148 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I have to propose the deletion and let an admin take care of it. By the way, I know you're an admin so you probably already know this, but Wikimedia has a [unified login] so you can use your de.wikipedia account here as well. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the GetBackers character list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You commented on the pages needing to be merged.If the pages were merged then the artical would be too long.

Then people won't beable to find what they're looking for because you have to take out some information.

Then there won't be any point in having information on any of the characters.Slidell-tigers (talk)

Actually, most the content of those individual character pages is plot sumary. Per WP:PLOT a short plot summary is appropriate, however all wikipedia subjects must be covered from a real world perspective, the articles cannot be dominated by in-universe detail. Also they do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements that require independent pages to have a demonstration of the topic's notability through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Because of this, policy requires these non-notable topics be merged to a larger more notable topic. So for both these reasons the content cannot stay as it is. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a conversation on Talk:List of GetBackers characters, so put any responses there. Thanks --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The strange edit at my talk page was vandalism.

It would have been fine to leave it killed. I appreciate your killing it, and I completely understand restoring it... some folks are happy to have visitors do things like that to their talk page. All the best. :)sinneed (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't exactly sure whether or not it was vandalism. Didn't want to warn someone for no reason. :P --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No please don't be sorry. I have faced the same struggle many times. I appreciate both that you killed it, and that you put it back. Thanks. :)sinneed (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland County Council

Hi - sorry, I was trying to move Northumberland Council to Northumberland County Council and seem to have made a mess of it! It doesn't seem to have worked for me, rest assured, I wasn't trying to vandalise! :) BNC85 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem! Sorry if I surprised you! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wasnotest

1ivRSI[lukitup,ndontdiskriminate,tx.2WASrequest3wipagelokd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.69.75.105 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2009

Diffraction Gratings tutorial

Hi can you please let me know why it is inappropriate when it is not a promotion or advertising or personal websites.I would also like to point out that same kind of external links from another user already exist and seems accepted on diffraction gratings wikipedia page. ABeelut (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits appeared to be promoting that web site you were placing different articles from that site onto multiple wikipedia articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi It is a Diffraction Gratings tutorial by J.M. Lerner and A. Thevenon part of the HORIBA Jobin Yvon company website, on the optics of spectroscopy. It covers: diffraction gratings - ruled and holographic; monochromators and spectrographs; spectrometer throughput and etendue; optical signal-to-noise ratio and stray light; the relationship between wavelength and pixel position of an array; and entrance optics. May be the way i am adding the links are inappropriate , can you please tell me the right way in doing so. is it inappropriate because the tutorial is part of Horiba Jobin yvon website?, will you accept it if the tutorial was seperate on another website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABeelut (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with the content of the article. I just patrol for vandalism and other suspicious behavior. Your activity looked like web site promotion so I reverted it. If you'd like to add the article to one article and see if the editors there approve of it, that would probably be fine. Just don't go around to different articles linking a specific website in the external links section, that's promotion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for your advice. I would be very grateful if you could help me with the following query. how can someone affiliating with a company write articles or updates articles on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABeelut (talk • contribs) 10:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as editing for the company, you really shouldn't do that. But in editing subjects of interest that may relate to your work, I would read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding conflict of interest (Wikipedia:COI). If your company is directly involved in the subject though, you may want to consider working on something different so your main interest will be the improvement of Wikipedia and not promoting the company (see also). If you're interested in these topics and want to improve Wikipedia's coverage, your help would be much appreciated! Just make sure to be upfront with your potential conflict so the other editors are aware of it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Huggle

Yeah, sorry about that. I tried to cancel the reversion, then Huggle locked up on me. I'll change that setting now. SMC (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you

		Anime and manga service award
		For tagging and assessing over 400 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Service Award. —G.A.S ^talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help:) G.A.S ^talk 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! w00t! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism and Objectivism

(1) Congrats on the above award.

(2) I was going to fix that Elastica thing. I like both songs, Stutter and Connection, but it was the latter that should have had the links.

(3) Please check the discussion on Talk:Libertarianism and Objectivism

Cool runnings,
Yartett (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfDs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Aurora Publishing review for the discussions of the various Aurora titles. The project is still going through the many articles and Prodding/AfDing those that are not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been up there for a week! I don't know how I missed that one. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [2] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [3] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

What do you mean you actually took out some books from your library to check references? I do this maybe once a month when picking old magazines for sources. Is it really that unusual? Ottre 09:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean I went and dug out 70 year-old books that no one seemed to have. If you do that all the time, that's great; but that kind of time-investment really isn't the norm. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. I noticed you've been editing for some time, so it seemed odd that you didn't have a similar arrangement—time isn't an issue really, as librarians are generally very willing to help the project and will hold. Most places will locate and transport books for you for nothing, and are happy to give away a few newspapers and magazines which are out of date. Would have thought it's a regular thing these days, as we have been entering lockdown phase for a few months now. Ottre 09:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it also depends on what your subject is. For some subjects, there is a wide variety of online sources to choose from (such as fiction or movies). With more academic subjects, it requires a little more in-depth research as there are few reliable sources online. I appreciate the encouragement to make better use of the library though. I have been putting off hunting for a certain magazine interview for a while and I feel a little more motivated to get to the library again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that

Thank you for reverting 212.219.21.116's vandalism to my talk page! — Athaenara ✉ 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I hate vandalism. :D --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small addition

copied from User talk:Xenocidic/statusChanger2.js

I'm sorry but my knowledge of JavaScript seems to be at its limits. Would it be possible to add &action=purge to the links so that the status on the userpage and and usertalk can update? I created a modified statustop that has a button I can click on each page to refresh the status, but it would be cool if the statuschanger could just do that by itself. Hope to hear from you soon. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I apologize for the delay in answering this. Unfortunately I have to admit I'm not very good with .js myself. I only made minor changes to the script when I stole it from the previous owner =) –xeno (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:FICT

As I wrote there:

I'm sorry I thought this was a poll, not a discussion where we can question each others rationals underneath each other, if that is the case, I will start commenting above too. Kraftlos, Izno please refactor out your comments to the above support section, not here. You can remove my comments too.Ikip (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a going a bit far. What we did was just fine, please. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Eat up!

LOL, that's perfect, thanks! It makes more sense too. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Elfen lied 03.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Elfen lied 03.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Albrecht

Hello,

You marked my edit as vandalism, yet this is not the case. Feel free to review the reverted edit. The quote, is, in fact, legitimate, and you can confirm this with the accompanying reference that was provided. I believe this quote fit quite well in context with the other ones provided in the section. Please remove your edit.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.29.210 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't fit, and digg or youtube is kind of a shakey source, especially since you say unknown episode. Wikipedia can only refer to information that has already been published by reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is the video as published by its official distributor, Revision 3. It's Episode 59 of their weekly podcast: http://revision3.com/diggnation/2006-08-17. Please remove you edit and change the source.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.29.210 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that's a reliable source. Simply having a web site that is popular doesn't make the source reliable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the reliability can be refuted in this case. I added a quote that Alex Albrecht said. Are you denying that the person in the video is really Alex Albrecht? Maybe if you took some time and actually watched the video, you'd be better enlightened. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.29.210 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see now that self-published sources are acceptable when the subject of the article is the one who published it. Just make sure its fully cited and that it meets Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources. I apologize for not investigating it further, but like it says in the notice at the top of the page, I made these edits quickly; your edits looked suspiciously like vandalism. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History merge

Hello, Kraftlos. You have new messages at Graham87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm not sure if you want the reply on my talk page or yours. :-) Graham87 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Swai fillet.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Swai fillet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm a tad confused at your comment here, where you assert that "wikipedia doesn't have moderators". Could you please elaborate? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of the project is that everyone take some responsibility in policing the project. As Wikipedia grew, adminship was need to take care of some of the more specialized cases, however that's not really a moderator. What the user was implying was that someone was put in an elevated position to police the content of a page, and that is not the case. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators, its a community effort. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]