Dear KZ -- I have really been fascinated by your fantastic User:Kzrulzuall/Talk Header. I was hoping that I could use this as a template for my own talk header which would look like this. Is it possible I could use your header as a template for a header of my own? I'm not sure if this was custom made by you or if you could allow me to use a large portion of the code for a very similar looking one, so if you could get back to me I would be very grateful. (in the meantime I'm going to leave it off my talk page incase you will not allow me). MrMacMan02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the fair use of a television show is that you are allowed to use it on the article of the show in question.
Would you be so kind as to show me where it says that? I'd like to read that in more detail. If the subject of the show and the article in question is the same (e.g. John Edward) it seems to me that fair use would cover that usage in Wikipedia. Thanks! Dreadlocke☥06:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I made a mistake"? That's not very helpful - I need a little more infomation than that. To the way I read it, the part of that tag that says "or program and its contents" means the contents of the show, a major component of which is "John Edward", the host and subject of the show - it's a show about what he does. That seems to cover fair use of a screenshot in the article on Edward. This is what I need clarified. Dreadlocke☥19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that it is still classified as fair use. That's the problem. It still wouldn't be classified as irreplaceable. You could put it on as the main image but i have a feeling it might be removed. --KZ Talk •Contribs00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what's the purpose of that when nothing is really irreplacable? I mean it's irreplacable as far as anything in my posession and I don't think anyone is going to come up with some personal shot of Edward. In the meantime, our encyclopedia is losing out on adding interesting shots that might cause our article's attraction of readers to go up a notch or two. Guess I could write Edward's people and ask for a publicity shot, but with the negativve nature of our article - I don't think I'd even try to ask them. So I guess the article will go pictureless as far as a header goes. Shame. Dreadlocke☥03:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they must have been tabbing it. They took the time out to hit my user page as well. I blocked for 48 hours but they posted and un-block. Don't know if anyone will unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)09:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Please note that sarah has indicated she will be not on for a while - well worth seeking out another admin... however the tag has been placed ...SatuSuro11:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your summary for this meditation you commented that the parties seemed to resolve. On a seperate, but related MEDCAB case, User:Skaraoke quit any form of WP mediation, writing, "Since participation in these mediation processes is voluntary, I will not participate in any more of them." I probably wouldn't say we resolved any situation related to the requested mediation you closed. - Freechild12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for the misunderstanding, but I meant to say that since one party refused to mediate voluntarily, that the case had to be closed. And I just don't see what the fuss is all about... I'm pretty sure that if you and him refrain from editing related articles, the case will be solved. If you can't come up with a compromise, maybe try a community enforceable mediation?--KZTalk• Contribs22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That user was a newbie, went wild in his behavior, and I was trying to follow any kind of process I could find in order to rectify the situation. It looks like they have backed off, and like you suggest, I am staying away from the article that user created. It was really not that big of a deal, not at least until it did get personal, but I'm letting go of that now... I just wanted to make sure that the record reflected the situation, that's all. Thanks for the suggestion about a next step though - I appreciate your attention to the matter. - Freechild02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Hunt was a self described neo nazi, who tried to abduct Ellie Weizel. He posted that information on a white supremecist message board. What is wrong with that? I would really like to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.74.70.152 (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hunt is a Holocaust denier who in recent weeks traveled to Florida in an unsuccessful attempt to confront Wiesel at a conference there, said Lt. Dan Mahoney, head of special investigations for San Francisco police. Hunt began following Holocaust denial organizations after graduating from college, and although he used the Internet to spread his beliefs, authorities believe Hunt acted alone.
He appears to be what we call a lone wolf, Mahoney said.
Five days after Wiesel was attacked, a man identifying himself as Hunt posted a detailed account of the crime on several anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Web sites. That account matched a description of the attack police provided a few days later. In the online post, Hunt said he cornered Wiesel, the author of more than 40 books based on his Holocaust experiences, to force him into admitting that the Holocaust never occurred.
On Feb. 6, an author identifying himself as "Eric Hunt" posted an article on an anti-Zionist blog registered in Australia. It stated he wanted to get a "confession" out of the "'Pope of the Holocaust religion,' Elie Wiesel," by taking him to a room at the Argent Hotel.
He said he had been stalking Wiesel for weeks for the opportune time to approach him.
The author of the article attempts to discredit Wiesel's most famous book, "Night," published in 1958, which gives a haunting first-person account of life under Nazi rule in the concentration camps.
"I had planned to bring Wiesel to my hotel room where he would truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his non-fiction Holocaust memoir, Night, is almost entirely fictitious," the posting read.
Hi - anon user and I had a disagreement on a content issue, but anon seems to have blow things all out of proportion and has accused me of "energetic hatred", "admantine nastyness", "insist on having it his own way" and even accused me of calling him names! None of this is accurate, and I suspect the anon is using personal attack mode to try and get his way with the content issue. At this point I have backed off and won't make any further edits, but I was hoping someone could help moderate a little before things get out of hand? In fact most of the anons edits are good, but I see some changes that need to be made, but every time I make a change I get attacked with some very strong language. -- Stbalbach23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you want me to do, the guy is uncivil, rude and making personal attacks, it has shut down any discussion on the talk page. If I go back and try to "settle the issue" it will just escalate a bad situation, communications are shut down by his incivility. A one or two sentence reminder of WP's rules on civility on his talk page by an admin would probably do wonders to get him to act more professionally. Anyway, maybe the anon has "gone away" it's been a few days I'll try to make an edit again and see what happens. -- Stbalbach15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have written May I remind you that personal attacks are not meaningless, Iwazaki..I don't think I really got what you meant by this..Are you saying that personal attacks can be meaningful also ? --Iwazaki 会話。討論17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote some remarks to another user that were uncivil and speaks a lot about accusations with no proof. The warning was not meaningless, as stated when you crossed it out. Please refrain from making those attacks without proof. --KZTalk• Contribs22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kipper
So, you filed your comments without bothering to read any of the talk? You demand sourcing, but if you had read the talk you would see that I clearly already provided extensive sourcing, and that what Stbalbach keeps insisting on with absolutely no sourcing at all, is simply wrong. Why must all my sourcing now be repeated "below the line"? Why is pointing out the high-handed and dismissive language of Stbalbach, which he started right from the beginning, and continues, worthy of a stern warning against me, but he is permitted to keep reverting my absolutely factually backed-up edits with nasty comments, and that's OK? The material is simply, factually untrue, even as currently edited by you, and is in fact a health hazard, but to preserve Stbalbach's hurt feelings I have to simple stop editing the page? I'm bewildered. I started making edits to a page I actually know quite a bit about professionally, with perfectly solid 3rd part sources, and I was taking all this Wikipedia philosophy seriously, and yet I am treated like an incompetent leper. Consider it "incivil" of me, but man oh man, does Wiki make people feel like this is all about some in-crowd and a lot of cliques of editors and administrators, and nothing to do with accuracy or competence in the field. I've read a lot of criticism of Wikipedia in the press and online, and I thought it was all crazy, but geez, you try to make an article about food less harmful to people's health and because some Medieval historian has suddenly made kippers his religion, having apparently never set foot in a kitchen, you get slammed by the "government" of Wikipedia. What a way to completely turn off anybody with any actual expertise, and no agenda or "cause" to push, from ever wanting to get involved with Wikipedia.24.168.4.1523:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to find a compromise that suits you both. Copy and paste the sources from above if you wish, and I will try to figure out a way to end the dispute. Remember that this is affecting others too, not just you. And since you feel so strongly about this, I will revert back to the revision you feel most comfortable with. --KZTalk• Contribs00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. This has opened my eyes to what Wikipedia truly is when it comes to a reliable information source. The reputation and the negative press Wikipedia has gotten I'm begeining to think is richly deserved. Stbalbach can do whatever he wants to the article, and so can you. This is my last visit in any way, shape or form to Wikipedia since clearly I won't be permitted to contribute and whatever information I can offer is clearly unwanted. I think you and Stbalbach better hope that liability law never allows somebody who gets hospitalized or worse with clostridium botulinum to sue you and Stbalbach because of what was presented as reliable on Wikipedia. I don't have the energy to fight for what is blackletter accepted uncontroversial information anywhere else in the world. Have a nice day.24.168.4.1500:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template
Hi, I read your RfA there before and it stated that you've created a template. Please could you tell me how to create one, I am really desperate to know how!....Thank You
Radio_orangeYoYoYo13:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
... I thought it might clutter the page there otherwise (though do feel free to put it back - it was just an idea....)
.. I wasn't overly upset by your accusation of being banned, but in the future it might be better not to make such comments without a strong reason, and strong evidence, because it can be extremely upsetting to some folk....
Hey KZ. I wasn't trying to erase. I was trying to add more relavant info concerning the investigation. I used quotes from news sources previously sited as well as new national sources. Shac1 didn't like the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzaman0000 (talk • contribs)
If you were trying to add some info, you should do it in one go, or put an reasonable edit summary in saying what you are doing. When I looked at it, it definitely seems to be removing information, so I gave you that warning. Feel free to change the article, but keep my advice in mind. --KZTalk• Contribs02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sp3000 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Sp3000 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DarkFalls. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
It smells of exaggeration. An Indian probably asked politely to borrow a cup of syrup and went away when he said no - and then years of accretion turned it into a bloodcurdling tale of their nightlong defence of the house against a howling cannibal war party out to butcher and syrup-roast the whole family. Tearlach03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reported 2 accounts with "homoerectus" names to AIV as sockpuppets of Homoerectus 3000. One of them only made a single edit fixing vandalism and the other had never edited. What is more, both of them were created well before the alleged puppetmaster was. The most reliable way to identify socks is based on their contribs, but if you want to go based on name, please check that the puppet was created after the master started causing trouble. —dgiestc05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I doubt homo erectus3000 was the master... I had a suspicion the person started editing way before then. But thanks for the advice. --KZTalk• Contribs05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed somebody citing your signature as a (secondary) reason for an oppose. With all due respect to the editor who said that, taste is no reason to determine who would make a good admin. Regardless, if you like your signature you ought not change it for someone's opinion about what makes a good "admin" signature. (However if someone cited a technical reason, that would of course be a different story). Anynobody00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm in the middle of a nuclear war with that RfA...I never really liked my "current" one and I'll change it back, but it might just be suicide, amidst more objections. --K.Ztalk00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you no longer like your sig, then definitely change it for that reason. (The suggestion that the "look" of a sig would reflect an admin's potential just struck me as a bad reason to change by itself.) One more thing I wanted to mention, try to keep your nomination up until it expires, since there are a lot of editors who haven't voted yet but still may (or may not, but one doesn't know until time runs out). My recent self-nom was shelved by a 'crat with a little over two days to go, I never got an answer why. (If 99% of the community voiced it's opinion in the negative I wouldn't have had to ask.) Anynobody09:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please do this delicately? (I saw you just reverted your edit to cricket's talk page.) This looks confusing, and I'm not sure who is at fault. Of course, the constant reverting on both user's parts is a total edit war / 3RR-vio, but I'm not sure who's edits are bad and whose are goods. Thanks, Iamunknown00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in part is was a failure to communicate. Look at cricket's user talk space contribs: only undos to his/her own talk page; few talk space contribs, unrelated to articles in dispute with 12345ak. All the communication they did was templates. --Iamunknown00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it was retaliation and harassment. I really feel it was a failure to communicate face to face, instead going to functionary boards to "report" the other user (as Crickettragic reported 12345ak to the WikiProject and 12345ak reported Crickettragic at ANI). --Iamunknown00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see what I wrote to SWATJester on his p[age and now see how it is going on on mine.
people wonder how far some people can be pushed, im getting VERY tired of this, other people can see these are multiple sock puppets and yet nothing is done.
this guy just gave me a final warning (hahaha) for you fixing my page!!!
[4]
he's a sock puppet i reported to another admin and now he is all over my poage giving me warnings for no reason at all as well as following my contributions and reverting what I do!
Hi there. As the user that issued the warnings, I can say that they were justified. The warned user keeps vandalising, blanking articles, accusing me of being a sockpuppet, made a personal attack on me, and makes unjustifiable actions. These warnings are completely justified.
(sighs) I think you are a little warning tag happy since it is all your edits are. Your not an admin, maybe you should stop messing with people's talk pages and then when they edit them back accuse them of blanking their own talk page? You just gave me a final warning for blanking my page when this admin fixed it? Maybe you should learn how to use the tags. CINEGroup 04
22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Before getting into a happy little insult war on my talk page, remember about AGF. That talk page needs to be fixed... but give me some time and stop template-talking and it'll be fixed. Just calm down both of you's --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get proper warnings like the one you put on the Ip addresses talk page that kept vandalising the european union? I could only type in a little message which they ignored anyway Eaomatrix10:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kzrulzuall, User:COFS has been a bit of a problem for a while. Rather than put time into fighting with him, I put incidents on the noticeboard. This user also did destructive, unauthorized editing on my user page twice.--Fahrenheit45100:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: andrew johns
sorry for what i did to the johns page, just that i did it due to the people putting on the darren lockyer page that he is a homosexual —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.32.145 (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
RFA thanks
Thank you, DarkFalls, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicOTalk
The above archive is a past discussion. Please direct all new discussion to the current talk page. Thank you.
